740.00119 Council/2–2048: Telegram
The United States Deputy for Austria at the Council of Foreign Ministers ( Reber ) to the Secretary of State
665. Delsec 1 1560. Austrian Deputies at 64th meeting (first of present session) commenced discussion of Soviet proposal.
2. US representative noted 4 governments now agreed in principle on a practical settlement thus ending discussions of definition, but stated agreement on assets question must be consonant with Austria’s ability to pay and at same time fulfill pledge to restore Austrian independence with viable economy. Agreement on assets must be conditional upon agreement on other unagreed articles. He stated Soviet contribution, together with French proposal, offers good basis for discussion.
3. British representative (Marjoribanks) stated implementation of Potsdam must not prevent reestablishment of an independent Austria, as provided in Moscow declaration, by imposition of intolerable burden on Austrian economy. He noted that agreement on frontiers, reparations and military provisions is vital for Austria’s future independent existence. No agreement can be reached on assets until status of other unsolved issues is known.
4. French representative (Cherrière) noted Soviet counterproposal differs considerably from French proposal, particularly paragraphs 5 and 6. He requested clarification of paragraphs 5 and 6 reasons for abandoning French suggestion regarding payment of lump sum in kind over period of years along lines of Italian treaty. He held agreement on assets key to agreed treaty, and stated FrDel is guided by (1) respect for international agreements regarding assets, and (2) desire for practical workable solution, in which regard French proposal was offered as an overall settlement involving balance between constituent parts. Regarding DDSG, he asked on basis what agreement SovDel asks for assets in western zones.
5. Soviet representative (Koktomov) stressed importance in Soviet view of conclusion of treaty, and belief that agreement on assets question should precede agreement on other questions, citing emphasis placed on assets at previous discussions and US position in deputies report to Ministers (London December 15)2
In reply to French representative, Soviet representative stated Soviet proposal was offered in place of unacceptable French proposal [Page 1468] and not as an amendment. Soviet representative held Italian treaty provisions not pertinent because Austria, unlike Italy, is not obliged or asked to pay reparations to USSR, but merely to transfer German property. He added that sufficient reference had been already made to damage suffered by USSR during war not to require repetition.
Regarding DDSG Soviet representative stated Soviet proposal is for transfer to USSR of 25 percent of DDSG assets in all of Austria, and in reply to French inquiry reference basis for this provision pointed out that although USSR is entitled to all German assets in eastern Austria it is prepared to deny itself great part of these in order to reach agreed treaty.
6. British representative asked Soviet representative how he proposes selection of DDSG assets indicated in paragraph 5, and whether lists are contemplated as in case of oil. Soviet representative replied lists are possible solution but held question not one of principle but of practicability and hence to be settled following agreement on principles.
7. Next meeting February 21 to continue same discussion, paragraph by paragraph.
Sent Department 665, repeated Vienna 5; Vienna pass to USFA, repeated Paris 58, Moscow 28, Berlin 21.
- The Delsec series of telegrams, sent through the facilities of Embassy London, were from the U.S. Deputy for the Austrian Treaty Negotiations, Reber. Similarly, the Ausdel series, sent to Embassy London, were for the U.S. delegation to the Austrian Treaty Negotiations.↩
- The reference here is presumably to document GEM (47) (L) 15, December 2, 1947, Foreign Relations, 1947, vol. ii, p. 798.↩