840.811/8–1648: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State
Deldu76. At start of today’s meeting Danube Conference shifted from general committee to plenary to appoint credentials and drafting committees. Soviets proposed US as member drafting committee along with USSR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and France. I declined for USDel saying this was tactless proposal in light of exclusion of English as official language. France also declined, as did UK, proposed as substitute for US. Vyshinski deplored our decision, stating this a political question. Three western powers, [Page 709] he said, had taken positions in opposition to majority but nevertheless as participants in conference should be represented in drafting committee, final phase of conference work. He noted that USSR at UN had not refused to participate on such committees though in minority. I replied drafting committee not important and that I had given good reasons for non-participation, pointing out USDel was participating in conversations [conference], had accepted appointment to credentials committee and ready to go on with discussion of amendments.
Secretary General notified conference of communications from Italian, Belgian, and Greek Governments reserving their rights under 1921 convention. Soviet bloc voted down proposal letters be circulated, then passed, 7 to 3, Ukrainian proposal that conference take note of Secretary’s statement. Soviet spokesman claimed this vote ended matter, barring future discussion on it. I pointed out no decision had been taken on whether or how conference would reply to letters, and that question would be raised after delegations had chance to read them.
With conference again in committee British delegation introduced amendment to Article 41 covering relationship to UN and procedure for settlement of disputes. I supported British amendment, at same time defending our proposed new article on UN relationship in statement cabled Deldu 73 today’s date. Principal argument of Vyshinski’s reply was that peace treaty procedure for settlement of disputes was applicable also to disputes over Danube Convention, with changes required by different conditions. He rejected idea of appeal to International Court on ground Danube disputes were affair of Danube nations, whereas Court, with judges from El Salvador, Mexico, China, Egypt, et cetera, no proper body to take up disputes on Danube. Composition of Court, he said, showed majority for Anglo-American-French bloc and only [two] judges were from Danube states. Danube states therefore wanted disputes settled by bodies and individuals from Danube area, not by judges from remote countries like El Salvador. He concluded law could not be separated from politics and judges’ decisions necessarily reflected politics.
UKDel, Fletcher Cooke,1 in cogent and forceful statement, replied to Vyshinski’s “attack” on the Court, referring to differing conceptions of justice perhaps impossible to reconcile. He mentioned Articles 2 and 20 of statute of Court and judges’ oath. Vyshinski’s response was comparatively weak, largely repeating earlier arguments. He denied having cast aspersions on integrity of judges, although in fact his remarks had been very strong, inferring Court a packed political body [Page 710] with no justified claims to impartiality. British amendment and US new article voted down by 7 to 3, then Soviet article 41 passed by 7 to 1 (US).
French complicated matters by introducing proposed new Article 41 bis (Doc Com Gen 7) on revisions of convention in future, which we had expected them to withdraw. Article provides for possible revising conference made up of signatories to convention, with revisions going into effect only when all signatories ratify. French seemed to ignore fact that three western powers, likely non-signatories, did not wish to exclude themselves from participation in future conference to revise convention. Also CFM decision of December 1946, making no reference to signatories, lists by name participants in such conference. Vyshinski accepted French proposal with amendment providing for revisions going into force when 6, instead of all, signatories ratified convention. Amendment carried by 7 to 3, whereupon French withdraw their proposal, relieving situation which might have been quite embarrassing to us. USSR then made its own proposal for article on lines of French proposal as amended by Soviets. It was carried by 7 to 3 votes.
I am chairman at tomorrow’s session, during which we should finish discussion of draft convention, hear reports of committees, and possibly return to plenary.
Sent Department; pass Moscow, London, Paris, Sofia, Bucharest, Budapest, Prague, Vienna, Geneva for Thorp.
- P. Fletcher-Cooke, Legal Adviser with the United Kingdom delegation at the Belgrade conference.↩