740.00119 EW/11–1446: Telegram
The Chargé in Italy (Key) to the Secretary of State25
[Received November 15—10:09 a.m.]
4219. Secretary General Foreign Ministry26 told us this morning that replies from other three powers had not yet been received (my 4205, November 1327). He said that there had been a preliminary reply from Jebb through British Embassy here which indicated that UK had no objection to direct Italo-Yugoslav negotiations but that [Page 1161] formal reply would have to await Bevin’s consideration and decision.28 Tarchiani had received impression from Couve de Murville that French would welcome direct Italo-Yugoslav negotiations intimating that Italians might satisfy Yugoslavs by making certain “slight” concessions such as giving them part of city of Gorizia. Prunas said he had impression that French would not be averse to acting as intermediary between Italians and Yugoslavs leading to another of their well-known compromises. No indication of Russian views.29
Prunas said that manner in which Togliatti had submitted Tito’s proposal to country (my 4180, November 7)30 had given 50% of Italian people impression that Trieste could be had for Italy through direct negotiations with Yugoslavia. Consequently from Nenni’s standpoint it is essential that he should make effort to treat directly with Yugoslavs on this question Prunas added.
Please inform Secdel.
Repeated Belgrade 173, Caserta 1088.
- This telegram was transmitted from Washington to New York on November 15.↩
- Renato Prunas.↩
- Telegram 4205, November 13, is quoted in footnote 90, p. 1111.↩
Telegram 4235, November 16, from Rome, not printed, reported that the British Chargé had delivered the British reply to the Italian Foreign Office on November 15. That reply, a copy of which was given to the United States Delegation at the Council of Foreign Ministers in New York, read in part as follows:
“The present position is that the Council of Foreign Ministers maintain their decision of July 3rd, but have not so far laid down the manner in which it is to be applied in detail. His Majesty’s Government for their part stand by the relevant recommendations of the Paris Conference which form the basis of the present discussions of the Council.
“His Majesty’s Government would naturally be prepared to study with sympathy any direct agreement between Italy and Yugoslavia which seemed likely to promote lasting international peace, stability and cooperation. But Mr. Bevin is not in a position to judge whether the informal Yugoslav proposals which gave rise to Signor Nenni’s communication to him offer the prospect of such an agreement; and the question of entering into negotiations is one for the Italian Government themselves to decide, bearing in mind that any agreement would have to be most carefully examined by the Council of Foreign Ministers in the light of the Council’s decision of July 3rd and the recommendations of the Paris Conference.
“It is impossible on a purely hypothetical basis to discuss the possibility of any special guarantee. All that can be said at present is that any agreement relating to Trieste which might commend itself to the Council of Foreign Ministers would in Mr. Bevin’s view have to be incorporated in the Peace Treaty, when it would enjoy the same international status as the other provisions in that Treaty.” (CFM Files, Lot M–88, Box 2094, Italy—No. 7)
The French reply dated November 18, 1946, a copy of which was given to Secretary Byrnes by Couve de Murville on November 21, was very similar to the British reply (CFM Files, Lot M–88, Box 2094, Italian-Yugoslav Frontier VIII).
↩- The Soviet reply, dated November 18, a copy of which Foreign Minister Molotov sent to the Secretary of State the same day, is printed on p. 1199.↩
- Ante, p. 1042.↩