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

840.811/8–1448: Telegram

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

us urgent

Belgrade, August 14, 1948.

Deldu69. From Dustmann for Michael McDermott and Dunning. Statement by Cannon August 14 supporting US amendment Article 38¹ follows:

“We would like nothing better than find in various Soviet articles assurance of adequate safeguards for ‘freedom navigation’ that been talking so much about. Unfortunately, USDel convinced Soviet draft more shadow than substance on this matter.

We accept Vyshinski’s statement that there adequate provision Soviet Articles 1, 37 for non-discriminatory treatment as relates port dues. USDel feels that regards sanitary police regulations, adequate provisions appear be set forth Soviet Article 23.

Convention must be considered as whole. USDel cannot finally accept certain sentences or even certain articles if do not represent part of whole document which itself be satisfactory. It serves no useful purpose to have assurances non-discriminatory treatment of such items as port dues sanitary regulations if, at same time, there no assurances non-discriminatory treatment terms of ‘conditions for merchant shipping’ such as right of vessels to enter ports, load discharge cargo, refuel, etc.

With this in mind, let us look at Articles 21 and 38 Soviet draft.² What is purpose of clause ‘subject to regulations established by Danube states concerned’? Adoption of reasonable regulations by individual states on this subject in accordance with general practice, and can give no ground for objection. But what assurance given that users of river be protected against abuses in formulation administration these regulations? Why does convention for free navigation not contain clearly non-discriminatory provisions on these points?

As in case Article 21 I should like to ask why is there inserted in Article 38 this limiting clause ‘on basis agreements concluded with appropriate transportation and expeditionary agencies,’ without same time protecting foreign shipping companies against discriminatory treatment this respect? We had debate few days ago on question privileged companies—those Soviet-Rumanian and Soviet-Hungarian companies we have been talking about for two or three days. USDel has shown tremendous importance this clause contains. Whole question commercial intercourse between nations by way Danube River is involved these few words.

Both these articles deal with very essentials of trade and navigation—that is, entering of ports and use port facilities. Qualifying clauses which I have read from Soviet draft would allow whole series arbitrary and discriminatory actions against vessels attempting engage international navigation. The purpose this convention is establish regime designed to achieve freedom navigation. I should like to ask, that [then], why these basic articles have been drafted in such manner as leave door wide open for discrimination, unless indeed there is intention discriminate?

What explanation can be given as to why principle of nondiscrimination has not been spelled out Articles 21 and 38 in Soviet draft as is being done Articles 23 and 37? May be that answer again will be that omission of anything making these articles really effective due to solicitude repeatedly professed for sovereignty of riparian states. If so, I believe that we have already effectively disposed misconception that sovereignty of riparians is in any way at stake under effective convention. Quite reverse is fact. We think that there would be more shipping on river, riparians would have more trade, and more actual and solid sovereignty if their ports could be used on truly non-discriminatory basis.

My government’s concern here is that convention be such that articles shall clearly provide conditions which will serve as foundation freedom navigation. In order to assure that, we must do more than just pay lip service to principle. It is necessary to say precisely what we mean and say it without equivocation. That is what the USDel has tried to do in its proposed amendment to Article 38 which we now have under examination.

Let me refer briefly to points substance covered in US amendments. Vessels in international commerce would be assured rights access ports and facilities. This would include such essentials as wharfage rights, use docks, equipment, warehouses, trans-shipment facilities, etc. US proposal would assure that no distinctions concerning use facilities could be made basis of flag or ownership. US amendment also provides that vessels engaged in international navigation in transit through waters of riparian states should not be required to enter ports or unload or trans-ship cargoes or passengers.

To assure navigation companies could actually engage commerce on Danube, US draft would authorize such companies to establish and maintain agency offices and acquire buildings and facilities as necessary conducting their business. Is obvious that if these essentials are denied, there is also automatically denial of non-discriminatory treatment. These agencies would represent reestablishment normal economic intercourse along Danube to direct and obvious benefit of countries and peoples concerned. This would be in accordance practice followed all trading nations.

US amendment also provides in some detail for non-discriminatory treatment covering variety of charges in ports, locks, channels, etc. It further provides that all charges shall be published in tariffs, and that they shall be reasonable and designed facilitate rather than impede navigation.

What is there in this statement to which exception can be taken? Objection can be taken only those anxious retain freedom arbitrary decision exclude certain vessels from Danubian ports and also freedom hamper or exclude essential agencies of navigation companies.

I remind you these questions not raised in academic manner. As Vyshinski emphasized, free and open navigation principles peace treaties have been subject agreement four powers almost two years and are in treaty provisions which have been force almost one year. Still, river remains stagnant terms volume traffic and practical regulation such traffic. Words of peace treaties alone not enough. If we are seriously to fulfill purposes for which conference was called, convention must be prepared, and commission must operate, in manner Conducive genuine revival trade and navigation. Qualifications Soviets draft reveal that document does not, to any practical man, furnish kind instrument needed.

USDel has carefully analyzed this draft. It finds that crippling provisions permit continuance of exclusion, discrimination, yes, even imperialism on river of type that has been all too evident in past three years. In truest sense of word, this draft reveals reactionary tendency looking towards creation more vested interests on part of one power against real interests of all peoples along river.”

• [Dustmann]
• Cannon

1. In the Soviet draft convention Article XXXVIII read:

   “Vessels entering ports for loading and discharge shall be entitled to use loading and unloading machinery, load plant, stores, store space, etc., on basis of agreements concluded with the appropriate transportation and expeditionary agencies.

   There shall be no discrimination in determining the amount of costs for services rendered.

   Advantages given according to the usage of commerce in connection with the volume of services and the nature of cargo shall not be regarded as discrimination.”

   The proposed amendment by the delegation of the United States was that the article in the Soviet draft should be eliminated and replaced by the following article:

   “Vessels in international navigation shall have a right of access to Danube River ports for loading and unloading goods and passengers, taking on fuel and supplies, and making necessary repairs. They shall have a right of wharfage, use of docks, loading and unloading facilities, equipment, warehouses, elevators, and transhipment [sic] facilities, so that no distinction is made as to flag or ownership, to the detriment of the nationals, goods and flag of any state, between them and the nationals, goods and flag of the riparian state itself or of the most-favored-nation.

   No vessel engaged in international navigation in transit through any riparian state shall be required to make entry of any port, or be required to unload or tranship [sic] its cargo or passengers, in whole or in part.

   Navigation companies, irrespective of nationality, engaging in commerce on the Danube, may in any Danube port establish and maintain agency offices and acquire or utilize buildings, wharfs, warehouses and other facilities for conducting their business.

   All charges shall be assessed and applied without discrimination or preferential treatment in any way between the flags, vessels, goods, companies and nation of any state, or in respect of ports of departure or destination or control of vessels. Where dues are charged for the use of locks, by-passes, improved channels or river approaches, they shall be reasonable in rate, assessed solely on the tonnage of the craft, and intended only to defray the costs incurred in improving or maintaining the navigable channel.

   All charges shall be published in tariffs. They shall be reasonable and designed to facilitate, not impede, navigation or commerce. They shall be levied in such a manner as to make detailed examination of vessels and cargoes unnecessary. They shall be administered in such a manner that vessels are not unduly detained.”

2. Article XXI of the Soviet draft convention read: “Vessels on the Danube shall have the right, subject to regulations established by the Danube States concerned, to enter ports, to load and discharge, to embark and disembark passengers, and to refuel, to take on supplies, etc.”