740.00119 Council/2–1047: Telegram

The United States Deputy for Austria at the Council of Foreign Ministers ( Clark ) to the Secretary of State


903. Delsec 1211 from Clark. Deputies for Austria at February 8 session heard Mr. I. S. Senin, representative Ukrainian SSR, give views, obviously Soviet inspired, re Austrian treaty.24 Senin declared treaty should ensure prevention Austria being used in future as place d’armes for attacks vs her neighbors; political and economic sovereignty Austria; prohibition Anschluss or bloc with Germany; Austria guarantee to suppress Pan German and Nazi propaganda; transfer to Germany all Germans coming to Austria after March 13, 1938; and settlement displaced persons problem by repatriation discussion followed Senin’s presentation.

Chairman announced receipt of communication from Yugoslav delegation, which stated that it required more time to study Austrian documents re Carinthia and would be unable to appear at joint session with Austrian delegation until end of next week. This is undoubtedly another move by Soviets to stall discussion of frontier claims by Yugoslavs and Czechs.

During discussion articles on withdrawal Allied forces and termination ACA control, sharp debate ensued between Gousev and me when, after British and French indicated agreement with US views in these matters, I pressed Gousev for his views re the 90-day withdrawal clause. Gousev evaded direct reply and went into long tirade against US and British for not following wording satellite treaty clauses when the latter were applicable Austria. He claimed CFM in New York decided that this would be done to facilitate drafting Austrian treaty. He referred particularly to my stand on war criminal [Page 128] article and concluded that because of US and British tactics he now reserved right non-adherence to satellite wording for articles under discussion.

In reply to Gousev I insisted that some Austrian problems were entirely different in nature from those found in satellite states and therefore treaty clauses for those states should not be followed blindly in drafting Austrian treaty. I admitted desirability making maximum use satellite clauses but insisted deputies must determine applicability. Re war criminal article, I emphasized determination to stand by US position. (In this connection, I note with satisfaction your comments re this subject in Secdel 1288, February 7,25 received subsequent to session reported in this message.) I concluded by again putting direct question to Gousev whether he was or was not agreeable to 90-day withdrawal.

Gousev remained evasive, stating that he would make no exception to rule using satellite treaty wording when such was applicable Austria. At this point, British deputy reminded Gousev that CFM decided only upon using general form satellite treaties framing Austrian treaty and had not specified that exact wording of clauses in satellite treaties must be taken for Austria.

Replying to question by me, Gousev stated Soviet representatives on military committee insisted upon variation from satellite treaty wording because Austria presented special problem re demilitarization, denazification, etc. This gave me opportunity to say that the existence in Austria of certain conditions which did not prevail in satellite states was also reason why I insisted upon modifications in war criminals article and that Gousev’s position re military clauses made my case that much stronger.

I continued to press for an answer, accusing Gousev directly of evasion. He finally reluctantly indicated Soviet position on withdrawal same as other deputies, and article was referred to military committee for drafting. Deputies also agreed refer without discussion prisoner of war article to same committee. Deputies meet next on February 11 to hear report of political committee. Considering that conference has now run four weeks, I consider progress far from satisfactory. Arguments today typical of Soviet tactics engaging in lengthy discussions of issues not directly contributing to agreement or compromise. Gousev consumes too much time criticizing proposals other powers and offers little by way of constructive effort or alternate proposals. Main issues to date are demilitarization, denazification, displaced persons, war [Page 129] criminals, and guarantees of Austria’s independence and territorial integrity. Referral some of these questions to ACA, proposed by Gousev, merely results in unagreed report from Vienna, delays solution problem here and provides Soviet opportunity for repeating familiar propaganda. Progress in military and economic committees extremely slow, with time consuming arguments over single sentences and sometimes words. Agreement by Soviets on clauses similar those in satellite treaties generally forthcoming, but they usually noncommittal on clauses designed especially to cover Austrian problems.

Dept pass to War Department for information.

  1. This was the 18th Meeting of the Deputies for Austria. The text of the Ukrainian statement was circulated to the Deputies as document C.F.M.(D) (47) (A) 45, February 7, 1947, not printed.
  2. Not printed, but see footnote 23, p. 127.