860S.00/7–3048: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom


3028. Redeptel 3009, July 29 (Sent Trieste 379, rpt Rome 2012)1 transmitting text Yugo note to SC re FTT, we have discussed FonOff preliminary views with Brit Emb. It had been our thought we should make statement at time initial discussion in SC now scheduled next Wednesday to effect we flatly reject Yugo accusations and would refer to Genl Airey’s reports to Security Council on administration US–UK zone as complete record all actions taken. Would point out that an examination that record will show administration completely in accord treaty obligations and international law governing conduct military government. We would refute principal charges in general terms and further state we undertaking thorough investigation all allegations and will be prepared for full discussion in SC at early date. Would suggest in meantime members review Airey’s reports on US–UK administration including report second quarter 1948 to be delivered SC next [Page 536] week.2 Would further observe SC may well desire include in its consideration Yugo note an examination of broader aspects of problem FTT. In accord Brit suggestion reference might be made Mar 20 proposal and failure Soviets give views on subject. We would seek delay further discussion Yugo note pending completion study charges and preparation full information for consideration SC.

We consider controlling factors determination our line in debate in SC would be position Soviet members vis-à-vis Yugos charges and general intervening European developments. If it appears Stalin prepared rebuke Tito to extent opposing Yugo position, it may be desirable broaden debate to cover discussion Yugo administration Yugo zone and to endeavor obtain SC recommendation interested powers negotiate revision Ital treaty to provide return FTT to Italy. We have also considered possibility Yugo move planned as demonstration solidarity Eastern states in international affairs despite intermural Communist Party rift, and Soviet members give full support Yugos (as may be suggested by Manuilsky’s effort obtain immediate consideration Yugo note), we might still wish mention broader issues along above lines for psychological impact but in that case it may be preferable manoeuver debate to avoid show-down on overall FTT problem and Mar 20th declaration in SC and merely refute Yugo charges and provide some background for possible future reference FTT “Situation” to GA.

Although our position in second debate dependent developments, including any revelation Soviet position on issue as well as general European situation, we are considering desirability stating we would be agreeable to reference specific Yugo charges re treaty violation to International Court should other members SC consider such reference desirable after having heard our full exposition on refutation allegations. Although we have no firm views re advisability reference general FTT problem to a commission at this time, we will consider Brit suggestion and foresee possibility situation developing in such manner make such move attractive. As we have pointed out rep Brit Emb, we convinced we must feel our way along on this problem and plan course as situation develops in such way as not jeopardize our fundamental objectives in area.

We believe above position in general in agreement views FonOff and also UKDel at SC. Please discuss FonOff and advise soonest.

We are requesting Trieste to obtain Airey’s comments specific charges Yugo note and have also requested Rome’s views.3 Would appreciate FonOff’s comments re suggested position at initial discussion [Page 537] and strategy to be followed thereafter. USDel at SC will coordinate all actions with UKDel.

Sent London, reptd Rome as 2024, Trieste as 386, USUN 495, Moscow as 879, Paris as 2923, Belgrade as 433.

  1. Supra.
  2. See editorial note, p. 530.
  3. In telegram 466 from Trieste, August 2, not printed, Joyce reported that Airey thought that the Yugoslav charges could be easily refuted (860S.00/8–248).