840.811/8–1348: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State
Deldu67. Discussion on Article V Soviet draft convention on Danube brought to close with my statement this morning in which I replied briefly to number of statements made yesterday by Soviet bloc spokesman. Following were major points:
- (1)
- On American rivers mentioned by Yugoslav Delegation where no non-riparian states share in control, traffic moves freely, whereas on Danube opposite is the case;
- (2)
- Landlocked Danube states have permanent interest in effective guarantees and international control, Hungary for example needing assurance of freedom of navigation for its seagoing vessels, evidenced by official Hungarian note of November 12, 1945, recommending re-institution of prewar regulatory regime with consolidated commission including non-riparian representation;
- (3)
- In reference to shipping provisions of ERP referred to by Vyshinski as economic dictatorship, Soviet Delegation failed to mention transfer of US ships to foreign countries since war and gradual rehabilitation of European merchant fleets;
- (4)
- US Delegation misunderstood or misquoted judging by other delegations’ statements US claims responsibility for maintenance of peace in Danube area, since our statement yesterday referred only to common responsibility with other CFM members for peace settlements and problems connected therewith. I emphasized US objectives and responsibilities in Europe well known and we did not intend to abdicate them.
With debate out of way, rest of today’s session devoted largely to voting. Soviet Article V adopted by 7 to 3 vote. On Articles VI and VII (except paragraph E on which discussion deferred) there was usual 7 affirmative votes, no negative votes, US Delegation abstaining and British and French refusing even to indicate abstention. We withdrew [Page 698] our amendment to alternates [articles] 8, 10 and 12 in view of result of vote on Article V. 7 votes were registered for Articles VIII, IX, X and XI. US Delegation voted no on VIII, abstained on others. British and French ignored voting.
On Article XII British Delegation proposed Belgrade instead of Galatz as seat of commission but withdrew amendment after Bebler spoke in opposition alleging political motives behind it. On Articles XII, XIII, XV and XVI, 7 affirmative votes, 1 abstention (US), and two non-participants. On Article XIV (French and Russian as official language of Danube Commission), French voted with majority, US abstained, and British ignored vote.
Evening session began with my introduction of US amendments to Articles VII (E) and XVII, XVIII, XIX and first part of XX (see Deldu 66, August 13). After round of speeches by satellites, several of which were distributed in conference room prior to delivery by member of Soviet Delegation, our amendments were defeated by 7 to 3 vote, and Soviet text of Articles VII (E) and XVII through XIX passed with 7 in favor each time, US and British against, and France not participating.
Czech-Hungarian amendment relating to Gabcikovo–Gonyu sector then passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention (US) and 2 not participating in vote, but confusion reigned momentarily in Soviet camp when Lavrentiev (USSR) and Clementis could not agree to what Article in convention annex should refer. Vyshinski was absent today. Lavrentiev said matter could be settled by drafting commission [committee], although no such commission [committee] has been named except for specific purpose of drafting several articles of rules of procedure.
Articles XX, XXI and XXII passed without debate by 7 votes each time. We voted against XX and XXI, abstained on XXII. When Article XXIII (non-discrimination with respect to police and sanitary regulations) came up for vote, we caused confusion in Soviet camp by voting yes. Lavrentiev put his hand down when he saw mine was up, obviously disturbed by departure from usual pattern. After Article passed by 8 to 0 vote, Bebler proposed and obtained adjournment on ground all delegates were “getting tired”. In Vyshinski’s absence, Soviet bloc obviously confused by our decision to vote with them on this article. Reasons for our vote are:
- (1)
- We wished to record an affirmative vote to show solidarity with French, who had voted yes on Article XIV, and,
- (2)
- We shall argue, in connection with Article XXXVIII that Article XXIII is acceptable because of non-discriminatory provision. Sensation caused by our vote seems beneficial. Our strategy calls for affirmative vote on Article XXXVII also so that voting record will not consist entirely of nays and abstentions.
Committee, as anticipated, works with great speed through all articles except those on which we have submitted substantive amendments.
We reached Article XXIV tonight and our amendment to Article XXXVIII will be next stop probably early on tomorrow. Having in mind Department’s instruction to move forward toward plenary we may nevertheless have to prolong discussion on Article XXXVIII to gain time for British and French to obtain instructions. Peake is still operating under instructions contemplating a break before voting. French Delegation though not yet specifically instructed favors same course. I have informed both of tenor my instructions and expect them to hold together with us until with coordinated instructions we can agree on tactics in plenary.
Sent Department. Department pass Moscow, London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin, Praha, Budapest, Bucharest, Sofia and Geneva.