840.811/8–1348: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State
Deldu61. Only amendment submitted to Article 4 of Danube Convention is Czecho-Hungarian proposed annex (document ComGen three) concerning Gabcikovo-Gonyu sector of river and possible special administration there.1 At my suggestion, consideration of amendment deferred at yesterday’s meeting until committee reaches Articles 17 and 18, on which USDel has submitted amendments. Soviet Article 4 then voted on without amendment, with seven votes for, none against, and one abstention (US). British and French took no part in voting.
Radius presented our amendment to Article 5 with statement cabled Deldu 57, August 12. US position then subjected to attack by Bebler and Pauker, with some distortions of fact to which I intend to reply today. Both denounced our advocacy of non-Riparian participation [Page 692] on Danube Commission as motivated by policy of economic and political penetration (vide Marshall plan) aimed at domination of Danubian states. Both also said pre-war Danube regime, with non-Riparian representation, based on force and could not be reimposed. Bebler said US Proposal amounted to claim for new regime of “capitulations”.
Peake, defending our amendment and similar one tabled by UK, broadened discussion by contradicting Bebler on ERP. He argued only participants in position to judge it, that British people not worried about US penetration. He then cited UNRRA help to Yugo asking whether that had resulted in enslavement of Yugos by western imperialists. Turning to British claim to representation on commission, he gave figures on British Danube shipping in past and British loans to European Danube Commission enabling latter to improve maritime Danube.
Concluding, Peake raised question of status of USSR as Riparian state if Ukraine considered as such. He asked SovDel to clarify distinction between Riparian and Danube states.
At evening session Ukrainian and Bulgarian representative continued attack on US motives and policies, saying purpose of use [our] proposal on Article 5, [as] shown by our own presentation, was intervention in affairs of Danubian states.
Vyshinski carried on with fifty minute speech, much of which was denunciation of ERP as imperialism. This part was largely read, in contrast to usual extemporaneous performance, and appears to have been prepared well in advance for just such occasion. It contained usual charges of Soviet propaganda that ERP aimed at holding off US depression by stimulating exports and finding new markets; that aid to Europe only incidental; that conditions set which put European nations under our thumb through control of foreign exchange, etc.; that sovereignty of European states gravely threatened by our program of so-called international economic cooperation cloaking imperialist aims.
In latter part of speech Vyshinski returned to Danube questions, rejecting US amendment to Article 5. He held Ukraine and USSR both Riparian, latter because it included former; also, USSR touched river at confluence of Prut outside Ukrainian territory. In conclusion he rejected our arguments on Austria and Germany on ground CFM 1946 decision clearly bars Austrian membership on commission prior to peace treaty, and not proper to mention Germany in connection with Danube until general settlement reached on Germany in accordance with Potsdam.
As major east-west controversies are aired here for propaganda purposes, Danube questions tend to be lost from view. Vyshinski is at his domineering best in such exchanges, obviously trying to drive home [Page 693] idea that western powers impotent in this region. At preceding session he had verbal encounter with Gros of French delegation in which Gros, following lucid and impressive exposition, was challenged but hit back sharply and had last word. Yesterday Vyshinski had gloves off in going for us and for Peake. This morning I shall reply vigorously but very briefly in rebuttal but at same time call conference back to business at hand.
Sent Department as Deldu 61, Department pass Moscow, London, Paris, Budapest, Berlin, Bucharest, Sofia, Praha, Vienna, Geneva.
- The Gabchikovo (Gabćikovo)–Gönyü sector of the Danube river, west of Budapest, stretching between kilometers 1821 and 1791 from the mouth of the river, presented special difficulties for the maintenance of a good state of navigability, which particularly suffered from shallowness of the water level in dry periods. The problems encountered to ensure normal conditions of navigation along this sector formed the subject matter of Annex II of the convention finally adopted by the Belgrade conference.↩