840.811/8–648: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State
Deldu 39. Speeches by Pauker, Peake and Vyshinski took up entire session of Danube conference today.
British delegate submitted to conference yesterday four-page document on “principles on which a new Danube convention should be based”, not in form draft articles. Document lists points UK believes should be included in new Danube convention, including (1) freedom of navigation on footing of equality; (2) definition of Danube system [Page 665] as in 1921 convention; (3) commission with effective powers to maintain international character of river; (4) adequate safeguards to ensure freedom of navigation and exercise by commission of its functions; (5) association of commission with UN through submission of annual report to ECE or ECOSOC; (6) provision for future adherence of Austria and Germany; (7) abrogation of 1921 convention and earlier treaties on Danube with consent of all signatories thereto. No reference is made to composition of commission.
Peake made same points in speech today and also put in proposal on submission of disputes to International Court with alternative versions, providing in place of court, a tribunal composed of one member named by USSR, a second by UK and France, and a third by President of International Court. When these proposals are discussed, probably tomorrow, I shall be guided by instructions in Deptel 459 Dudel 24, August 5. Vyshinski has already announced his opposition, saying British proposals pointless, since majority of conference considers 1921 convention dead.
Pauker, in supporting Soviet draft convention repeated old arguments about prewar exploitation of Rumania by Western Powers through European Danube Commission and new freedom of Danube nations under leadership great Soviet Union. She then denied US had any right to participate in Danube River regime, saying new democracies would not permit dollar imperialism to do there what it was doing in Greece, China, France and Italy.
Vyshinski then delivered one hour speech on various points made by British, French, and US general statements of position. Most of his remarks were directed at my statement of yesterday and our draft convention. On three major issues he stated that commission membership must be limited to riparians, that US draft gives to commission powers which must be left to riparian states, and that there could be no association of Danube regime with UN. On commission membership he cited historical precedents beginning with 1815 various authorities on international law, and “sovereignty” of riparians. He stated Danube regime could not be put under “control” of UN body such as ECOSOC and thus under control of non-Danubian states.
Other points made by Vyshinski were following: (1) Our Article 1 contrary to CFM decision on Peace Treaty Article incorporated in Soviet draft as Article 1. (2) Immediate admission of Austria into Danube Commission proposed in US draft, contrary to CFM decision of December 1946. (3) US has had no commercial interest in Danube, present interest being obviously political despite US statement yesterday that Danube economic and technical rather than political question. (4) No question of Soviet domination or control through joint [Page 666] shipping companies in Rumania, Hungary and Yugoslavia, since these operate under local laws, have local chairman, grant USSR no preferences, and are based on treaties between sovereign states. (5) Articles 1, 20, 37, and 38 of Soviet draft refute US charge that draft does not ensure nondiscrmination.
Vyshinski’s speech was moderate in tone and couched in language of rational argument rather than invective. However, I thought it necessary to make special request to reply to it, since this will be best opportunity to refute his arguments and state strong points of US case before conference goes into commission to discuss draft conventions.1 Our statement is first item on tomorrow’s agenda.
We are bearing in mind that a break may come soon, especially after Vyshinski statement in speech today that everything in US draft which was acceptable could be found in Soviet draft and whatever was not in Soviet draft could not be accepted either by USSR or by other six riparians.2 Western Powers might regard this frank statement that there is nothing to negotiate as calling for immediate final showdown without going into committee discussions at all. Delegation still thinks, however, that while being prepared for break if situation so develops, we should proceed on basis of participation in committee sessions, arguing essential points of US case strongly throughout. We suppose Soviet bloc will stand tight, in which case we shall try to hasten return to plenary for final declaration. We believe this may necessitate some change in tactics having in view eventual breakup if committee work looks like involvement in non-substantive intricacies. It would be most useful to know how discussions Moscow and Berlin would be affected if we find it not to our advantage from viewpoint this conference to hold on indefinitely.3
British and French delegates are with US in recognizing need coordinated strategy (Dudel 25 August 6) on part all three delegates as climax of conference approaches.
Department pass Moscow, London, Paris, Bucharest, Sofia, Budapest, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Geneva.
- The General Committee sessions began on August 9. There were fourteen sessions held through August 17.↩
- Vyshinsky was recorded as declaring: “I would say in general that what is acceptable in the U.S. draft can be found in the Soviet draft, and what is not in the Soviet draft cannot be accepted. It cannot be accepted, either by the Soviet delegation or by the other six riparian states.”↩
- Ambassador Smith expressed the opinion in telegram 1566 from Moscow on August 9, 1948, 6 p. m., which he repeated in telegram 63 to Belgrade, that the “firm stand of our delegation at Danube Conference will help rather than hinder conversations in Moscow” and also that if the delegation believed it would be desirable to leave the conference he did not believe that this action would “do us any harm here and may rather do some good.” (840.811/8–948)↩