Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The British Commonwealth, Western and Central Europe, Volume V

Lot 54 D 211, Box 12726

Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Shipping Division (Rainey)⁸³

[Washington,] October 25, 1946.

Suggested Procedure in Dealing With the Danube Issue at the Forthcoming Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers

Briefly stated, I understand the basic policy of the United States in regard to the Danube to be as follows:

This government insists upon the reestablishment of the general principle of freedom of commerce and navigation on the Danube through international agreement on the statute of the future International Commission for the Danube. This statute should insure freedom of transit as well as equal rights and equality of treatment for the nationals of any country wishing to participate in commerce on this waterway. In the discussions of the Peace Conference the United States has maintained that the U.S.S.R., U.S.A., U.K. and France together with the riparian states should participate in a conference to reestablish statute for the future International Commission of the Danube.

The State Department has maintained that the United States does not wish to participate as a permanent member of the International Commission for the Danube unless this is necessary in the interests of world peace. However, this position has never been stated publicly.

It may be that the principal objection of the Soviets to the clauses in the peace treaties calling for freedom of navigation on the Danube and for the convening of a conference to establish the statue of the Danube commission is based upon fear of U.S.A., U.K. and French representation on the permanent Commission. If this is true, then you may wish to use for bargaining purposes in the coming Council of Foreign Ministers meeting the statement that the U.S.A. does not insist upon representation in the permanent commission, but wishes to assure that the statute for the Danube contains adequate provisions to protect the interests of non-riparian states. Furthermore, in informal conversations representatives of both French and British Governments have indicated that the United Kingdom and France also will not insist upon participation in the permanent commission, provided they are included in the conference to set up statute for the commission and have the opportunity of approving such statute.

If you wish, representatives of the Department will check this suggested position with the United Kingdom and French Government prior to the Council of Foreign Ministers meeting, so that you would have three-power agreement on nonparticipation in the permanent commission to utilize in discussions at that meeting.

With such an agreement between the three western powers it may be that the Soviet representative will be in a position to accept the principle of freedom of navigation and Soviet participation in a conference of the four powers and the riparian states to reestablish the statute of the commission. If CFM principles prevailed, four-power approval of statute could be required, even though only riparian states sat on the Commission. In that event, the United States would maintain its principle, the vessels held in the United States zones of occupation could then be returned, and one of the most insoluble controversies facing the CFM would be eliminated. Regardless of the outcome of the conference to establish the Danube statute, the United States would continue to press its long-range policy of freedom of navigation and to support the commercial interests of non-riparian states on the Danube through its representation in the United Nations.

83. Addressed to the Secretary and to the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Mr. Clayton.