Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 30, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 57

The Commission took up Article 34 (Danube) of the Rumanian treaty. Senator Vandenberg (U.S.) spoke in support of the U.K. and U.S. proposal as redrafted, (B&F/EC) Doc 46.³ He said that while the U.S. had no direct commercial interest in the Danube problem, it had an emphatic interest in international peace and security and in avoiding trade barriers which invited discrimination and friction. The U.S. had a special temporary interest since the Danube was an important—and now stagnant—artery of commerce in the U.S. Occupation Zones in Germany and Austria. The U.S. was an interested party as long as American occupation continued in Germany. The basic U.S. concern, however, was with the Danube as a factor in the total and indivisible peace which the Allied and Associated Powers were pledged to sustain. Senator Vandenberg spoke of the importance and history of the river and said it was impossible to contemplate a prosperous or a peaceful Danube without an over-all assurance of navigation and commerce free from discrimination and arbitrary, sectional barriers. He referred to the various Danubian Commissions since 1856 and stressed that relative freedom of navigation on the Danube had been accepted as essential for 90 years. He then described the general principles of the U.S. and U.K. proposal and its provision for the establishment of a conference of the eight riparian states and the U.S.S.R., U.K., France and U.S. He urged that the Commission not turn its back on history and experience and said that if previously established freedoms were to be restored, action should be taken now.⁴ Mr. Jebb (U.K.) supported Senator Vandenberg’s remarks. Referring to the Convention instituting a definitive statute of the Danube, signed in Paris in July 1921, he said it was unfortunate that the Soviet Union had not been a signatory power but that despite this obvious defect in the Convention, the Danube regimes established by it had been successful. It was essential that the objectives of this Convention be continued. Rumania should not be permitted to deny rights which were granted before the war. Urgent action was necessary; the Danube was silting up very rapidly. The Yugoslav representative then spoke in opposition to the U.K. and U.S. proposal on the grounds that it was not a matter for inclusion in the treaty; that it imposed on the sovereignty of Rumania; that it also imposed on the sovereignty of the victorious Danubian states, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union; and that it meant that a decision on the Danube would be taken by countries not directly concerned and without five of the countries which were directly concerned, i.e., Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany and Austria. The Congress of Vienna (1815), Congress of Paris (1856), Congress of Berlin (1878), and the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 had all advocated the sound principle of freedom of navigation on international rivers through the cooperation of the riparian states, but the role of the riparian states of the Danube had decreased under the influence of the great powers. During World War II, however, the influence of the non-riparian powers had been broken. Despite many obstacles, navigation on the Lower and Middle Danube was now functioning normally. Any question of the Danube should be settled by a conference of the riparian states themselves, in accordance with the principles of freedom of navigation, and after the entry into force of the treaty. In closing, the Yugoslav representative called the attention of the American Delegation to the 168 Yugoslav ships detained by American authorities in the Upper Danube and noted that the matter had been put before the U.N. M. Alphand (France) said that France considered the Paris Convention of 1921 still in effect despite the unilateral action taken by Germany against it in 1940. He then set forth a compromise proposal which would simply state that navigation on the Danube should be free and would provide for the calling of a conference of the riparian states and the U.S.S.R., U.K., U.S. and France to define this principle and to establish a Danube regime.⁵ M. Gerashchenko (U.S.S.R,) spoke in opposition to the U.K. and U.S. proposal and to the French compromise proposal. He said these proposals would encroach on the sovereignty of the ex-enemy states and that the problem was one for the riparian states to solve rather than the Peace Conference. M. Hajdu (Czechoslovakia) spoke of Czechoslovakia’s special interest in the problem and opposed both the U.S. and U.K. proposal and the French proposal. The representatives of Belgium and Greece spoke in support of the U.K. and U.S. proposals and wished to reserve their rights as signatories to the Paris Convention of 1921 in connection with any new Danube conference that might be called. The Polish representative also wished to reserve the rights of his country as a signatory to the Paris Convention. Senator Vandenberg then withdrew the U.K. and U.S. proposal with the approval of the U.K. Delegate [in favor of the French proposal]. He made five points in reply to other speakers: (1) No argument had been advanced against freedom of navigation; (2) Rumanian sovereignty was not being invaded; (3) Other Danubian states would participate in the proposed conference; (4) The Powers occupying Germany and Austria would have to represent their interests; and (5) The French draft asserted a principle for the Danube which had been ratified by a century of experience. Mr. Jebb then spoke in support of Senator Vandenberg’s remarks⁶ and of the French proposal. He added that the U.K. considered that the Paris Convention of 1921 was now in force. M. Gerashchenko said that the U.S.S.R. did not oppose the principle of freedom of navigation; it only believed that the principle should be determined by the riparian states, and not by the Peace Conference.

The Commission then rejected by a roll call vote of 9 to 5 the U.S.S.R. proposal that the peace treaties with Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary should not include provisions relating to the Danube. (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia formed the minority.) The meeting was adjourned before a vote was taken on the French proposal.

3. This redraft was identical with the original United States–United Kingdom proposal contained in the Draft Treaty (vol. iv, p. 79), except that the entire original was labelled part A and an additional part B was added reading as follows:

   “A Conference consisting of U.S.A., U.S.S.R., U.K. and France together with the riparian States including Roumania will be convened within a period of six months of the coming into force of the present Treaty to establish the new permanent international regime for the Danube.” (CFM Files)

4. For text of Senator Vandenberg’s statement, see Department of State Bulletin, October 13, 1946, p. 656; for documentation regarding United States policy on the question of the Danube, see vol. v, p. 223 ff.
5. For text of the French proposal, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 29, Report of the Commission on the Draft Treaty for Rumania, vol. iv, pp. 434, 447.
6. The text of this statement, Senator Vandenberg’s second of the meeting, was released to the press, September 30, 1946.