CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 67
The Conference began discussion of the Rumanian treaty, M. Molotov in the Chair. Senator Vandenberg (U.S.) stated that the economic clauses of the treaty with Rumania raised vital issues, particularly regarding the ability of Rumania to trade freely in world markets as well as other countries to trade with Rumania. Consequently, the U.S. Delegation desired to bring to the urgent attention of the Conference Article 34, since it believes a free Danube is indispensable to the economic health and peace of Central Europe. Though having no commercial interest of its own in the Danube, the U.S. must, nevertheless, act as an economic trustee for parts of occupied Germany and Austria, and a free Danube under unified control was therefore indispensable. The larger problem of the general peace, however, was its greater concern, particularly avoidance of international trade barriers which invited discriminations and dangerous frictions. Article 34 proposed to restore the wisdom of history and experience by reasserting the general principle that navigation of the Danube should be free and open on terms of equality to all states without discrimination. The general principles operative for 90 years were thus being restated. It would, therefore be a tragic mistake for the Conference to turn its back on historical experience. To keep silent on the subject would be an actual retreat—an abandonment of freedoms long established. The U.S. Delegation was urging the Conference to give an even more convincing vote in Plenary Session than in the Economic Commission (8–5). No telling arguments had been raised against the proposal. There was only reference to the invasion of sovereign rights and the contention that the riparian states should have exclusive jurisdiction. [Page 759] The Senator pointed out that this obligation on Rumania did not invade its sovereignty any more than any other obligation in the treaty. There was no remote analogy between St. Lawrence and the Danube, which had several times been put forward as an argument. In fact water traffic of all nations is welcome on a free St. Lawrence with total equality with vessels of U.S. and Canada.
The U.S. Delegate also urged the Conference to adopt certain articles of the treaty dealing with general economic relations, particularly those seeking to eliminate discriminatory trade. It would be untimely and inappropriate for the Conference to go on record as favoring new preferences, new hurdles and new barriers. The Senator concluded by stating that the question at issue was whether the Conference was to take a backward step by agreeing that Rumania after emerging from her war of aggression was free to discriminate against the United Nations or whether it should not call on Rumania to deal with the United Nations on a basis of fair play and nondiscrimination (for full text see USD (PC) (PR) 37).38
M. Kardelj (Yugoslavia) said that he would only speak on one point, i.e., the Danube, with which Yugoslavia was far more concerned than any other country. The Yugoslav Delegation rejected the proposal for international control of the Danube since it could not agree that other powers than riparian states should participate. The Conference should not impose obligations on Allies. If a clause was inserted in the Rumanian treaty regarding the Danube, it would affect Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav Delegate noted that the riparian states themselves had voted against the French proposal in the Commission while the states farthest removed were by their votes forcing a decision on these riparian countries. M. Kardelj then traced the history of the international regime for the Danube, pointing out that it had involved imperialistic policies in southeastern Europe and a conception not based on the freedom of navigation but more on who was to be in control. The Yugoslav Delegation could not conceal the fact that it knew that the campaign for an international control of the Danube was really a struggle for spheres of influence. Were not the independent riparian states capable and trustworthy enough to organize their own system? If other countries were so anxious to recognize their independence and were not indeed imperialist-minded, why was it necessary to create an international regime for the Danube? Any Conference for establishing a Danube regime, which included the Big Powers and such countries as Italy and Greece, which were not riparian states, would deprive the Danube countries of a voice. M. Kardelj also wondered whether the state of mind which prevented [Page 760] the return of some 200 Yugoslav ships from the upper Danube increased confidence in any international regime for the river. He concluded that there was a remarkable difference between the attitude of certain countries towards Trieste and the Danube. In the former case Yugoslavia was losing its vital port, while in the latter, their attitude would result in diminishing Yugoslav influence on the Danube. This was all part of an imperialistic policy, an interference with sovereignty and a threat to peace. It was time to change a system which aimed at imperialism and spheres of influence to the detriment of small nations. These small nations should live according to their own desires.
General Pika (Czechoslovakia) said he thought the Conference should adopt an understanding attitude towards Rumania, particularly because of its great contribution to the final defeat of Germany and the liberation of Czechoslovakia. The defection of Rumania from the German side was a great strategic blow. Rumania had, in fact, done a great deal more than it undertook under the Armistice terms. For this reason, Czechoslovakia had refrained from proposing any amendments injurious to Rumania. Since Rumania had already given proof of its worthiness to become one of the peace-loving nations, the Conference should take into consideration its contribution to the final victory and treat it accordingly.
- For text, see Department of State Bulletin, October 20, 1946, p. 711.↩