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

840.811/8–648: Telegram

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

secret

Belgrade, August 6, 1948—5 p. m.

Deldu 36. Today’s Danube conference meetings, hereafter at Rumanian suggestion be held twice daily,¹ were devoted to general policy statements by US, French, Hungarian, Ukrainian and Bulgarian delegations. Text my statement sent forward Embassy’s unnumbered, midnight August 4.

Thierry’s declaration almost entirely confined to legal arguments in defense of thesis that 1921 convention still in force. He attempted to show that convention not annulled or abrogated by: 1, Sinaia and Bucharest agreements; 2, CFM declaration of December 1946; or 3, 1947 peace treaties. In concluding Thierry stated France willing to negotiate new convention in light of new circumstances and of aspirations of Danube states, but must reserve rights under 1921 convention still legally in force until abrogated with consent of signatories including Italy, Greece, and Belgium. He supported British suggestion that these countries be invited to join conference.

Hungary and Bulgaria speeches added nothing to those of Bebler and Clementis yesterday (Deldu 31, August 4).² Both condemned iniquitous 1921 convention, which facilitated imperalist penetration, and praised Soviet draft, which precluded such penetration. Both accepted latter as basis for discussion at conference.

Szanto, Hungarian deputy, agreed with Clementis that Hungary and Czechoslovakia will submit proposal for special bilateral arrangement as envisaged in Soviet draft on stretch of Danube where it forms boundary between them.

Baranovsky of Ukraine who requested postponement at morning session to gain time for preparation was first Soviet spokesman to react to my statement. In supporting Soviet draft he attacked US on several points, especially ERP which came in for customary excoriation as plan for US imperialist expansion in Europe. He also mentioned exclusive US control Panama Canal, about which we shall probably hear more later. He denied Danube not open to ships of all nations. Baranovsky held that concept underlying US draft hostile to democracy and sovereignty of Danube states.

All Soviet bloc spokesmen stressed need to limit administration of Danube regime to riparians. Ukraine and Bulgaria both asserted dual status as Danubian and riparian states.

At morning session Yugoslav delegation circulated proposal that conference resolve itself into committee of whole to draft convention using Soviet draft as basis of discussion. After US draft tabled proposal modified to direct committee to consider all drafts before conference. After last speech at evening session Bebler proposed that since majority of six delegations have accepted Soviet draft further speeches unnecessary. Rumania and UK have not yet spoken on Soviet draft. He suggested Soviet draft be used basis of discussion in committee and that articles be taken up seriatim with corresponding US proposals considered as suggested amendments. Vyshinski, who has been playing role of defender of opposition right to expression of views, rose to oppose proposal and insisted remaining inscribed speakers be heard. At same time he announced he would reply to comments on Soviet draft, which we take to be announcement of first outright attack against US.

Throughout speeches on Soviet draft complete subservience of satellite delegations to Vyshinski leadership has been striking. Satellite spokesmen have expressed no single difference with Soviet proposals, have shown no initiative or originality whatever, and have obediently parroted principal Vyshinski arguments while occasionally introducing some obscure piece of evidence obviously supplied by Vyshinski’s energetic researchers. Whole performance is reminiscent of well oiled precision and unanimity of USSR Supreme Soviet.

Sent Department. Department pass Moscow, London, Paris, Bucharest, Sofia, Budapest, Vienna, Geneva, Prague, Berlin.

Cannon

1. The meetings here referred to were held on August 5, in the morning at 8:30 and in the evening at 6. The proposal that meetings should be held twice daily had been made by Ana Pauker, head of the Romanian delegation, in the fifth plenary session on August 4.
2. The speeches by Alesh (Aljes) Bebler, the Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, and by Vladimir Clementis, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia, had been made at the fifth plenary session on August 4. The speech by Zoltan Szanto, the Hungarian Minister to Yugoslavia, was made at the sixth plenary session on August 5, and that by Evgeny Kamenov, the Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, was given at the seventh plenary session on August 5.