740.00119 EW/6–1246
The British Minister (Balfour) to the Acting Secretary of
State
secret
Washington, June 12, 1946.
My Dear Dean: I enclose a Memorandum on the
subject of freedom of passage through the entrances to the Baltic,
together with a draft protocol.
The Foreign Office originally intended to discuss the draft protocol
with the United States Delegation at Paris last month, but they now
think it unlikely that the question of the entrances to the Baltic
will be raised during the present series of meetings in Paris and
have therefore instructed us to pursue the matter in Washington.
Although the Foreign Office have thought it desirable to formulate
their views on the subject now in case it is raised by the Soviet
Government, they believe, nevertheless, that it is advisable to wait
for the Soviet Government to take the initiative since it is they
who appear to be dissatisfied with the present position. The Foreign
Office do not therefore propose to put forward the draft protocol
now, but to keep it in reserve until the question of the entrances
to the Baltic is brought up by the Soviet Government.
Should the Soviet Government agree to the protocol when it is
presented to them, France and the two riparian States, Denmark and
Sweden, might then be consulted and invited to sign it also.
I should be grateful to learn the views of the State Department on
this matter, and in particular whether they agree in principle with
the draft protocol.
Yours sincerely,
[Page 395]
[Enclosure 1]
Memorandum
His Majesty’s Embassy has the honour to refer to the exchange of
views which took place in January and February of this year
between Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Bevin on the question of free passage
through the entrances to the Baltic. As the Department of State
will recall, Mr. Bevin explained in the Aide-Mémoire which he left with Mr. Byrnes on January
14th that he would like to consider with Mr. Byrnes how best the
United States Government and His Majesty’s Government could
pursue a common line in any future discussions on this subject,
and whether it would be desirable to place the views of the two
Governments on record in any agreed communication to the Soviet
Government. In that case, Mr. Bevin pointed out, it would be for
consideration whether France and the two limitrophe States,
Sweden and Denmark, should be associated with such a
communication.
- 2.
- In his reply of February 28th, Mr. Byrnes agreed that at
the appropriate time some advantages, both political and
otherwise, might be derived from a revision of the
arrangements made in 1857 which would neutralise the Sound
and the Belts and would maintain and confirm the right of
merchant ships and war vessels of all States, whether
neutral or belligerent, to pass freely through the Straits,
both in peace and war, subject to such stipulations as might
have to be made to provide for restriction of the right of
free passage under the direction of the United Nations
Security Council.
- 3.
- Since the above-mentioned exchange of views took place, a
draft protocol affirming His Majesty’s Government’s policy
has been prepared and has been approved by the British
Chiefs of Staff. A copy of this draft protocol was
communicated last month to the United States Delegation at
Paris by the United Kingdom Delegation, but for convenience
of reference a further copy is enclosed herein. His
Majesty’s Embassy would be glad to receive the comments of
the Department of State on this draft.
- 4.
- It will be observed that the protocol makes no reference
to the Treaties of 1857, to which Mr. Byrnes drew attention
in his reply to Mr. Bevin. The reason for the omission is
that freedom of passage through the entrances to the Baltic
does not, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, depend on
these Treaties, which were solely concerned to abolish the
practice whereby the Danish Government levied dues on the
passage of ships through the Sound. The principle of free
passage through the Great and Little Belts and the Sound is,
in the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, a recognised
principle of international law and does not depend on any
Treaty. [Page 396] It would,
therefore, appear to be preferable not to refer in the
protocol to the Treaties of 1857 or any other previous
arrangements, but simply to reaffirm the principle of free
passage.
- 5.
- Mr. Byrnes also referred, in his reply to Mr. Bevin, to
the possibility of neutralising the Sound and the Belts. In
this connection Mr. Byrnes may have had in mind that it
should be laid down that no act of hostility should be
permitted in the Straits. In the view of His Majesty’s
Government, however, such a stipulation would be unnecessary
since it is impossible for ships to pass through either the
Sound or the Great or Little Belts without passing through
Danish or Swedish territorial waters, and the principle that
no act of hostility should be committed in territorial
waters is already sufficiently established in international
law.
- 6.
- Mr. Byrnes may also have intended that it should be laid
down that the entrances to the Baltic should not be
fortified. As regards this possibility, His Majesty’s
Government are of the opinion that it is very doubtful
whether it would be possible to persuade the riparian states
to agree to such a provision. Furthermore, the British
Chiefs of Staff, who have been consulted, would be opposed
to it on military grounds, since they see no objection to
the riparian states maintaining such fortifications as they
consider necessary.
- 7.
- As regards the possibility of the establishment of some
form of international control of the Straits, which Mr.
Byrnes may also have had in mind, His Majesty’s Government
feel that such an arrangement would not be desirable.
- 8.
- For all the above reasons, it would, in His Majesty’s
Government’s view be preferable not to include any reference
to neutralisation in the protocol, and all mention of it
has, therefore, been omitted from the proposed draft
protocol.
Washington,
June 12,
1946.
[Enclosure 2]
Protocol
Whereas it is a recognised principle of international law that
merchant ships and vessels of war of all countries have freedom
of passage both in time of peace and in time of war through
straits forming part of the highways of international traffic,
notwithstanding that the said straits may consist in whole or in
part of territorial waters;
And whereas this principle has for long been recognised as
applicable and has been applied to the straits giving entrance
to the Baltic Sea namely the Sound and the Great and Little
Belts;
[Page 397]
And whereas the event of war of 1914–18 and of the recent
hostilities make it desirable to reaffirm this principle in
respect of the said entrances to the Baltic Sea;
The undersigned duly authorised to that effect by their
respective governments hereby declare as follows
In accordance with the principles stated in the first paragraph
of the preamble to the present protocol merchant ships and
vessels of war of all countries have at all times freedom of
passage through the entrances to the Baltic Sea, namely, the
Sound, the Great Belt and the Little Belt, subject always to the
rights and obligations of any country under the Charter of the
United Nations.
