840.811/8–448: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State
Deldu 31. General debate on Danube Convention opened today with Vyshinski’s presentation of Soviet draft followed by Yugoslav and Czech speeches. I am next on list of speakers and shall make statement of US position at start of tomorrow’s meeting.
Vyshinski pointed out differences between Soviet draft, which respected sovereign rights of Danube nations, and 1921 Convention which gave Western Powers privileged position, repeating latter no longer in force. Most important difference was composition of Commission, which Soviet proposal restricts to Danube states. USSR, he stated, was a Danubian state. Vyshinski also made point that regime would apply only to Danube proper, not to tributaries and canals (Article 2).
Bebler and Clementis,1 giving fulsome praise to Soviet draft, said [Page 653] they had no changes to suggest in this perfect instrument. Both stated that the Conference should accept it in principle. Their arguments followed familiar line on western imperialism and sovereign rights of Danube nations laid down by Vyshinski. Bebler stated that in contrast to past, Danube no longer being used for purposes of imperialist penetration, and Soviet draft recognized that situation. My statement tomorrow contains a refutation of this thesis, which has been principal theme of Soviet bloc at Conference.
After all delegates have made general statements, discussion on Convention probably will proceed in committee, as Vyshinski suggested during his remarks today.
Sent Department. Department pass Moscow, London, Paris, Bucharest, Sofia, Budapest, Vienna, Geneva, Praha, Berlin.
- Vladimir Clementis, Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia, and Chairman of its delegation to the Belgrade conference.↩