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

840.811/8–848: Telegram

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

secret

Belgrade, August 8, 1948—6 p. m.

Deldu 41. When I had finished statement of US position at start of yesterday’s Danube conference meeting (text cabled in Deldu 40, August 7), Vyshinski rose to explain his declaration which I had chosen as theme for my statement. He denied having said everything in US draft not also in Soviet draft unacceptable and attributed “misunderstanding” to possible mistranslation. We [He] said reference was to Article I, X, XVII and a few others, not to entire US draft.¹

Vyshinskrs retraction when thus challenged on whether he meant what he had said on Thursday shows Soviet intention to avoid provoking Western Powers into withdrawing at this stage. While I see no hope of his making concessions on substance, he appears willing to have US proposals thoroughly discussed in committee.

Yugoslav delegation had presented three-paragraph resolution on how to proceed henceforth, summarized as follows: (1) Soviet draft to be accepted as basis for further work of conference; (2) all other proposals, including draft conventions, to be considered as amendments to corresponding articles of Soviet draft; (3) all new amendments to be submitted by August 9.

This would enable Soviets to confuse issues by accepting minor changes and some of our unimportant articles in committee. Our strategy has been to get US position before conference and world in best light by concentrating on major points. Therefore, I proposed deletion second paragraph Yugoslav proposal, explaining we would redraft our proposals in form of amendments to Soviet text. Although unexpected French proposal that US draft convention be accepted with Soviet as basis for discussion caused some confusion, conference accepted Yugoslav resolution with deletion of second paragraph as I had suggested (see Deldu 42, August 8).²

Conference then took decision to refer work on convention to general committee composed of all delegations. Question of admission of press to committee sessions caused some controversy, with three Western Powers supporting open meetings. I referred to well-known US policy of maximum freedom for press to report international conference proceedings such as these. After search for compromise, conference finally voted 7 to 3 against French proposal meetings be open unless committee itself should decide to exclude press, and 7 to 3 for Yugoslav proposal that meetings be closed unless committee decides to open them.

Peake introduced his two resolutions on submission of question of validity of 1921 convention to international tribunal (see Deldu 39, August 6) French supported them. I set forth our views in accordance with instructions in Dudel 24, August 5. Satellites spoke in favor of a Hungarian resolution calling for rejection of British proposal as “irregular”.

Vyshinski delivered 40–minute speech against British resolutions. He placed chief emphasis on developments leading up to present conference, namely, CFM and Paris conference discussions and decisions on Danube, in all of which no mention made of 1921 convention. Western Powers, he argued, bound by CFM decision to conclude new convention without regard to earlier Danube regime. Conference had just decided to do so on basis Soviet draft. Why should it suspend its work to wait for decision on already dead treaty by some other body? This was no proper question for the International Court of Justice, which could not pass on decisions of CFM or of this conference. To these points Vyshinski added numerous legal arguments based on text of 1921 convention itself and on its history since 1921.

Meeting, well past official closing time, concluded in great confusion, inept and irregular handling on part of Ukrainian chairman, and general ignorance and disregard of rules of procedure. Peake at one point protested against “definite tendency of majority to ride roughshod over rights of minority”. We contributed to this confusion in hope Hung resolution would be lost in shuffle, and succeeded. Vyshinski sent message around to Hung delegate who rose and withdrew his resolution. In separate votes on two Brit resolutions majority rode roughshod over minority by 7 to 3 score.

General committee begins sessions Monday.³

Cannon

1. According to the provisional Summary Minutes of the ninth plenary session on August 7, the disclaimer by Vyshinsky reads: “In connection with Mr. Cavendish Cannon’s declaration, according to which he had said that everything which is acceptable in the draft convention of the United States was already contained in the Soviet draft and that the rest of the American draft was not acceptable, Mr. Vyshinski stated that there was an error in translation or that perhaps he had not expressed himself well. He had in mind Articles 1, 10 and 17 of the American draft. With respect to the question of Austria, Germany and others, he did not intend to take them up again in the plenary session because he believed that they would be debated in due time within the committee.”
2. Infra.
3. The copy of this telegram in the files of the Department is incomplete. The last five sentences have been supplied from the telegram as sent from Belgrade.