Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

840.811/7–2348: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State

secret

Paris, July 23, 1948—1 p. m.

3837. Deldu 2. From Cannon. Had full dress meetings with British and French twenty-first and twenty-second. In addition two subcommittee meetings have been held to discuss specific questions referred by plenary meetings. General impression to date is that neither British nor French have strong convictions on most issues and that neither has given question detailed consideration it received in Washington.¹

At first plenary meeting British and French made clear their position that they consider 1921 convention remains in force until abrogated by all signatories and that they intend to fall back on that position if satisfactory convention not reached at Belgrade. We have not accepted this contention and hope to induce them to modify their stand in light of international precedents or not force issue at conference. (See following telegram² for Barron³ from Bevans.⁴)

French display no great eagerness for membership on Danube Commission. French are obviously concerned lest Soviets be given opening to request representation on CRC. British will apparently seek great power representation on Commission but do not intend to wreck conference on that issue.

British and French both appreciate importance of Austria’s position at conference but British disinclined to press for voting rights for Austria at opening of conference on ground that Soviet position certain to be opposed and would result in first East-West break. French apparently not disposed to press for Austrian participation in convention or Commission prior to Austrian peace treaty. Gruber⁵ is in Paris today and French may modify their position after talking to him.

At second plenary session British submitted for consideration position paper incorporating British desiderata for any agreed convention. British paper merely elaboration views previously communicated to Department (Foreign Office cable July 15 to British Embassy, Washington). British paper submitted to subcommittee for study and comment.

At second plenary session committee of legal experts reported on matters referred to them for study. On question of voting procedure at conference, committee considered it immaterial whether decisions reached by majority or two-thirds vote inasmuch as three western powers all reserved right to refuse adherence to convention if it proved unacceptable to them. Committee recognized need for safeguards to ensure implementation of convention and considered various courses, including reference of dispute to competent UN agency, exchange of observers between Commission and UN agency, conference of signatory powers to amend convention and reference of disputed points to International Court. Mob [Both?] British and French displayed considerable interest in providing for effective safeguards vested in appropriate UN agency but vague on nature of tie-in.

Subcommittee also agreed that Austria would be competent with concurrence of ACC to be a party to and participate in any Danube Convention. With respect to Germany, subcommittee agreed that participation would be possible only after peace settlement was reached. [Cannon.]

Caffery

1. Detailed Summary Records of Discussions with the American, British, and French Delegations to the Danube Conference, held in Paris at meetings on July 21, 22, and 23, were sent to the Department of State from Vienna in despatch No. USDel 1, on July 26, 1948; not printed. (840.811/7–2648)
2. Not printed.
3. Bryton Barron, assistant for treaty affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser.
4. Charles I. Bevans, assistant chief of the Treaty Branch in the Office of the Legal Adviser; member of the United States delegation to the Belgrade Conference.
5. Dr. Karl Gruber, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria.