840.811/8–1348: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary
Deldu64. From Dustmann for Michael McDermott and Dunning. Content of remarks by Cannon before Danube Conference, August 13.
Yugoslav delegate mentioned number US rivers not subject international control. Most are national rivers by definition which Yugoslav [Page 694] delegate cited yesterday, some can hardly be called navigable in commercial sense. On those which are, traffic moves freely. That is crux of problem. On Danube, traffic does not move freely. It is as means of achieving that end we propose nonriparian representation.
Those delegates opposing nonriparian representation have lost sight one very important point, that riparian states themselves have real interest in regime with sufficient safeguards for freedom navigation, so their ships sail without hindrance to sea.
Postwar Government Hungary, November 12, 1945, addressed note to US, British, Soviets, giving views on Danube question.1 It called attention to great importance to Hungary of regime which guarantees full freedom navigation. It suggested prewar system international navigation be reconstituted with provisions for changes required by new conditions. Hungarian Government did not envisage elimination nonriparian representation, for it suggested consolidation into one commission of European Commission Danube and International Commission Danube. Both commissions, as conference aware, had nonriparian representation. There changes since 1946 but we believe long-term economic interests Hungary remain same.
Vyshinski referred to shipping provisions Marshall Plan as example economic dictatorship, and quoted recent unofficial item from British paper to substantiate unfounded claim. What Vyshinski not mention was millions tons US vessels transferred to European countries since end war. And today fleets European countries expanding and fully employed, for Marshall Plan has maintained volume trade these countries. US merchant fleet is steadily decreasing and will continue decrease as merchant fleets Europe rehabilitated. I am surprised Vyshinski raised shipping question, for he certainly knows his country gives preference to vessels under Soviet flag, with respect all its trade. Large proportion those vessels owned by US, having been turned over Soviet during war under Lend-Lease.2
I not here yesterday when Radius read text American proposal Article 5. Delegates Yugoslavia, Rumania, Bulgaria made observations regarding supposed claims US to responsibility for maintenance peace. There was nothing about maintenance peace our paper. He did say “along with the USSR” these states had special responsibility for peace settlements Europe and for problems related to settlements. As members CFM, those four governments have undertaken responsibility [Page 695] for peace settlements Europe. On question responsibility maintaining international peace security, delegates here familiar with fact these states also permanent members Security Council. Under Article 106 of Charter, pending coming into force agreements under Article 43 by which armed forces to be made available to Security Council, they charged with consulting together as occasion requires “with view to joint action on behalf organization as may be necessary for purpose maintaining international security.”
These international instruments well known. That US has general obligations, responsibilities in Europe, including those parts of Europe through which Danube flows is also well known. We do not intend abdicate those responsibilities. [Dustmann.]
- Not printed. For documentation on the interest of the United States in the establishment of an international regime for the administration of European inland waterways, see Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ii, pp. 1364–1388; and see telegram 2527 to Moscow on December 14, 1945, 8 p. m., for remarks about problems regarding the Danube, ibid., p. 1384.↩
- For documentation on the continuation of efforts by the United States to negotiate a lend lease settlement agreement with the Soviet Union, and the return of eight merchant vessels, see pp. 950 ff.↩