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

840.811/8–548: Telegram

The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State

u.s. urgent

Belgrade, August 4, 1948—midnight.

Unnumbered. From Dustmann for Michael McDermott and Dunning. For release after 3 a. m. Washington time.

Statement of the Hon. Cavendish W. Cannon, Chairman, US Delegation, Danube Conference at 9 a. m., August 5, 1948.

“The task of this Conference is to implement principles to which all our governments have already pledged agreement in the treaties of peace between the Allied and Associated powers and Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. The Government of the US has vigorously advocated these principles since the end of the war. We have gathered here to establish international arrangements covering the entire navigable Danube, which will in fact assure freedom of navigation to all nations on a footing of equality.

I hope that the political factors which have engaged much of our attention since this Conference opened will not divert us from this objective. I acknowledge that in making this assertion I differ from the opinion expressed by the Soviet Delegate that the problem of this Conference is essentially political. I think it would be most deplorable if we persist in making it so. We Americans are practical people. Let me say at the outset that we want ships of all flags to move up and down the river. We consider that this Conference should work out a system to restore a once flourishing traffic, and, by its further development, to speed the recovery of Europe. The welfare of the peoples of the vast region served by this great waterway, and the development of its resources, are necessarily dependent upon the facilities for meeting the urgent need of supplies of many kinds, and for the exchange of goods. These peoples will measure the success or failure of our worts here by the realities of its contribution to economic progress.

Every state represented here has something to contribute in accomplishing this task. Every state represented here has a real and legitimate interest in the Danube. To the riparian states the Danube is a vital artery of trade with one another and with other parts of the world. Others have a direct economic interest because of their trade and shipping, actual and potential. Many are parties to previous international conventions relating to navigation on the river. The US believes that any international regime established by the Conference should take fully into account the interests of all these states, whether riparian or non-riparian.

Clearly, the riparian states have a primary interest. The Danube, however, has long been recognized as an international highway open to the trade of all nations. The US is of the firm opinion that provision should be made for the representation of the legitimate interests of non-riparian states on the International Commission established to carry out the provisions of a Danube convention. We are convinced that such representation, by virtue of its basic importance for expanding trade and shipping activity, is equally in the interests of the peoples who live along the Danube.

We do not admit that non-riparian representation can justly be termed a ‘privileged position’ as was stated yesterday by the Soviet Delegate in his resume of his proposed draft. On the contrary, an important reason for my Government’s strong conviction in favor of non-riparian representation lies in the dangers inherent in exclusive control which can too easily be misused for the privileged interest of one country or a limited group of countries at the expense of all others. This has been demonstrated to the detriment of riparian as well as non-riparian states, both in the distant and in the recent past.

The US interest in the Danube is based upon several considerations in addition to its role as a sponsor of this Conference.

The share of the US in achieving the common allied victory in Europe is well known to every delegate seated around this table. More important, however, for the purposes of our discussions here, is the unprecedented material contribution made by the American people to Europe in recent years. This is proof of our determination to assist the European peoples in the reconstruction and the development of their economies.

Even more pertinent is the flow of billions of dollars of goods and equipment from America which my Government is currently making available under the European Recovery Program.¹ This great undertaking proves the determination of the US to continue to contribute to the improvement of the welfare of all European peoples. It is based on the conviction that economic health is a prime condition for peace. As a signatory to the peace treaties which are already in effect, the US has a joint responsibility with other signatory powers to ensure the effective and adequate implementation of the principles of freedom of navigation. A similar provision has been agreed upon for incorporation in the Austrian Treaty. The US has the responsibility of participating directly in the problems of the Danube by reason of what is still a provisional situation as regards the treaty with Austria, and by reason of the American occupation of that zone of Germany through which the navigable Danube flows. This latter responsibility will continue until a sovereign German Government is established and is granted full participation in a Danube regime.

The charge, which has been made several times in this hall, that the United States has espoused the principle of freedom of navigation in order to dominate smaller Danubian nations has no foundation whatever, as those who have made it are well aware.

I have spent much of my life in this part of Europe. I was in Belgrade 28 years ago in a post-war period when these countries had to grapple with many of the problems of economic dislocation which are vexing them today. I was again in Belgrade in April 1941 when parts of the city and of the river port were destroyed by German bombs, and when the debris of bridges and river craft choked the river.² I know something of the general economic problems of these Danubian nations, and their hopes for economic progress. From this personal experience let me express to the Conference my deep conviction that no people, no nation in this part of Europe, is really afraid of American domination.

Given good will and consideration for the views of all states represented here, this Conference is surely competent to write a convention with sufficient safeguards against interference with the independence of individual countries and against exploitation of any kind.

Our-goal is a convention acceptable to all the nations represented at this table. I agree heartily with the Soviet delegate when he says that no delegation should attempt to impose its will on the conference. We are here to negotiate, I repeat, to negotiate, an agreement. Only by agreement can we hope to fulfill the objective of a regime implementing the principles to which all of us are already committed.

I was surprised at our session yesterday to hear the Yugoslav delegate assert that the Danube is no longer being used for purposes of economic penetration. I would ask the indulgence of the Conference to present briefly some evidence to the contrary.

The Soviet Union has put into operation a system of shipping and other transportation and development companies in several Danube states with varying degrees of Soviet ownership and in most cases effective Soviet control. These companies conform to a familiar pattern. In the first place, they have generally been given privileged treatment in terms of business taxes and rights to import goods without licenses or duties. Thus, these companies, in effect, have been granted special privileges and have been subsidized by the Danubian governments.

These companies not only dominate the Danube fleets in the various countries, but more important, have obtained control of most of the useful ports and dock facilities. Loading stations, factories, dwellings, warehouses, elevators, railroad and communication connections, have been put under the control of these companies. This type of control is certainly not needed for the purpose of efficient shipping operations. It is clear that this virtual monopoly of facilities can be used at will to make available, or to deny, the essential facilities of the major Danubian ports to ships of other nations, even including other riparian nations. I ask the Conference to give special attention to article 38 of the Soviet draft in the light of these conditions.

Let us now look at the American record. The United States has had military control over 275 miles of the river in Germany and Austria for over 3 years. The United States has at no time attempted to gain monopolistic control for itself or for anyone else, and has not taken advantage of its occupation role to secure any commercial gain from the river.

Repeatedly during the debates which have taken place at this Conference the importance of the sovereignty of states has been stressed. The United States recognizes and respects such sovereignty, and has no intention of advancing any proposals limiting or curtailing the right of any state independently to judge its interests and rights and to act accordingly.

We believe there are certain important provisions which a new convention should contain. We think that it should include not only the necessary statement of free and open navigation, but the even more important provisions for achieving this objective. Accordingly, definite provisions should be made to provide equal right of access to ports and facilities for the commercial vessels of all nations. Navigation companies should be allowed to engage in commerce and to establish agencies along the river. These provisions for operation should not be crippled by qualifications which would, in their effect, limit the use of the river to the ships of certain privileged nations or privileged companies.

Concommitant with our belief in the urgent need for strong provisions looking towards free and open navigation and a commission with non-riparian representation, the United States is of the view that there should be a clear statement of the functions of the Commission.

The Commission should provide for continuous study of conditions of navigation and commerce, and in addition should have power itself to look into such matters first-hand. The Commission should be empowered to make recommendations on proposals concerning navigation, commerce, and the use of water resources; draw up navigation, sanitation and police regulations with the objective of achieving uniformity for the whole course of the Danube; recommend uniform conditions for pilots’ and navigators’ licenses, crews’ papers, laissez-passer arrangements and safety requirements; and have a secretariat chosen in such a way as to secure the widest representation from states members of the Commission. It should consider any complaints and questions relative to the interpretation of the Convention.

The United States considers that the proposed Danube Commission should be brought into association with appropriate organs of the United Nations. We should be glad to hear suggestions from other delegations regarding the form which such association might take. It is particularly unfortunate that we do not have present here observers representing the United Nations. Because of the refusal of the Soviet Government to join the other three sponsoring powers in acceding to Secretary-General Lie’s request to send observers, no invitation could be issued.

On one especially important point, the settlement of disputes, we feel that the Convention should make specific reference to the United Nations. Differences regarding interpretation or application of the Convention should, in accordance with provisions of the United Nations Charter, be submitted to appropriate international bodies for arbitration or judicial settlement.

In accordance with the resolution of the Council of Foreign Ministers of December 1946, provision should be made that the Convention may be amended by a conference composed of representatives of all parties to the present Conference. Other states which may have become parties to the Danube Convention should also be represented at such a conference.

We have examined with great interest the draft convention submitted on Monday by the Soviet delegation. As is evident from my outline of the approach of the United States Delegation, there are points where we seem to be in agreement. But we find that in general the Soviet draft is inadequate to assure that freedom of navigation to which all of us are committed.

If, as the Soviet delegate has suggested, detailed discussion may be undertaken in a committee, the U.S. Delegation will want to ask the Soviet delegation for clarification of a number of points. For the moment, I shall limit my remarks to some of the major items.

We consider that the Soviet Union’s draft provisions on membership and organization of the Commission are wholly inadequate. We do not feel that a Commission established at Galatz upon the ratification of six riparian states, with vague functions and with two special regional administrations would meet the interest of the peoples of the Danube area or the requirements of world commerce. Moreover, there does not appear to be effective provision for the right of ships of all nations to operate on the Danube.

The Soviet draft gives inadequate recognition to the rights of one of the principal Danube states, Austria, in that it does not provide for immediate Austrian accession to the Convention. The draft likewise has no provision for eventual German participation. No mention is made of the United Nations. It is thus apparent that there are a number of matters of substance on Which the views of the United States and Soviet delegations are at variance. In our joint efforts to reach agreement and solution it may be of assistance to the Conference to have the United States views in the form of a draft convention. Accordingly, I have had such a draft prepared and will transmit it to the Secretary General for circulation to the Conference delegation.”

• [Dustmann]
• Cannon

1. For documentation on the Marshall Plan, and the carrying out of it in the European Recovery Program, see Foreign Relations, 1947, vol. iii, pp. 197 ff., and ibid., 1948, volume iii , under the European Recovery Program.
2. In regard to the invasion of Yugoslavia by Nazi Germany, see Foreign Relations, 1941, vol. ii, pp. 937–984.