840.811/8–1848: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State
Deldu81. From Dustmann for Michael McDermott and Dunning. Statement by Cannon August 18 before plenary session. Delegates of ten governments have now sat round table, flanked by deputies, experts for nearly three weeks. We made speeches, appointed committees, discussed specific articles of proposed new treaty. To all outward appearances we gone through motions of normal international conference.
But anyone who been seated this hall or gallery knows this been deception. This been unique performance in history international negotiations. I know no previous international conference where majority participants, with cynical solidarity, have refrained from proposing even minor changes in text laid before them for discussion. Document about to be put to final vote, document which Soviet delegate brought to conference to receive stamp approval.
It been our hope that delegates would be able really work out new regime free navigation Danube. We been thinking of agreement which would have these objectives:
- 1.
- To promote river trade within entire Danube Basin, to invite trade other nations into Danube River ports.
- 2.
- To assure that merchant ships any flag could use without discrimination these waters port facilities, subject only to equitable regulations.
- 3.
- To set up regime for regulation navigation adapted to special problems of great river system serving many states and responding to expanding requirements modern shipping traffic.
- 4.
- To coordinate administration this great waterway with other international undertakings through UN relationship.
- 5.
- To provide efficient impartial means for conciliation differences, for settlement disputes.
Draft agreement laid before us by Soviet delegate at beginning conference did none these things. That draft with no significant changes is document we now offered for final vote and signature. There been no negotiation. There been no attempt to reconcile differences of technical opinion. There been no compromise even in matters of form. In order explain this extraordinary situation we must say something about character of conference itself.
At opening ceremony Soviet delegate said: “Convention adopted here will not have be referred anyone. It will be adopted by majority conference signed by those who will sign and will come into force without consent of small minority if there be such minority.” On first real working day July 31 it made brutally clear that there to be no real discussion of problem for which we brought together. There was [Page 717] solid phalanx seven governments which already committed to adoption this Soviet text and already determined disregard whatever proposals US, UK, French delegations might present. On first working day we told “the door was open to come in, the same door is open to go out, if that is what you wish.”1
We not go out, we stayed on, trying every day to persuade conference take step toward genuine agreement.
Soviet draft convention laid before us August 2. Six other delegations accepted it without reservation. Some declared it perfect instrument.
To US delegation, Soviet draft for all declaration good intent, does not provide basis for reopening river to freedom trade navigation. It does not implement recommendations of Paris conference or CFM decisions. We think it backward step in that it represents new determined effort to cut off certain Danubian states from normal, essential, intercourse with rest world.
US objections to Soviet draft summarized briefly under five points.
1st. Draft fails prevent discrimination against shipping on river. It provides non-discriminatory treatment only for such minor things as port dues, sanitary regulations. On basic issues such as access to ports and facilities draft would leave door open to continuation exclusive discriminatory practices that been followed for past three years.
2nd. Draft fails recognize interest riparian states in rest world and interest rest world in trade with this region. This draft would provide mechanism for controlling economic intercourse with outside areas, even to detriment some riparian states themselves. There been explicit rejection any relationship with UN.
Convention eliminates non-riparian representation on new Danube Commission. Members this conference must surely realize non-riparian representation would be best assurance of more effective utilization of river and stimulation trade shipping.
3rd. Convention presents weak, badly organized commission with river system too narrowly defined since tributaries, important lateral canals omitted and only one outlet to Black Sea included. To complete picture of ineffectual commission, provision been made for establishment autonomous river administrations outside commission’s real control.
4th. Austria one most important riparian states with its great Danubian trade, barred from participation for time being. Question participation Germany ignored entirely.
5th. Convention attempts arbitrarily nullify 1921 convention. These provisions contrary not only to rights certain participants conference but also to rights other signatories 1921 convention, as Belgium, Greece, Italy.
After examining Soviet draft US, UK, France delegations submitted 28 amendments. Every one on which vote taken rejected with seven negative votes. Every article Soviet draft accepted thanks to votes these same seven states.
With that on record, it strange hear talk about dictatorship of minority. There no minority machine. Record shows even no uniformity in minority voting.
Behind each delegation are specialists, experts. Experts in maritime law, in practical problems merchant shipping, in technical problems hydraulic works, river control have sat here day after day listening to dreary political debates. Not once have they or their chief delegates with their advice grappled with practical problems we had hoped solve.
When we came here Danube River was dead to international trade as world understands term. When we leave here there will be no change, no change except present regime rigid Soviet control from Bratislava to Black Sea will have been acknowledged by seven governments at conference.
US delegation been perfectly frank in opinion special privileged position Soviet-controlled joint companies Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia is major obstacle to free navigation on Danube. We maintain this system interlocking enterprises constitutes huge monopolistic combine which in effect excludes commerce other countries from lower Danube. So long as this exclusive system continues, we do not see how shipping of other countries can operate in these reaches Danube at all. We think this one major problems this conference but each mention it brought forth charge of American “economic domination” and “imperialism.”
That one of strange things about conference, for history of relations of US with Danubian nations has proved to world disinterested concern American people in their welfare. Most delegates here have talked great deal about sovereignty as though merchant ships other nations in river ports would bring harm. That has hollow sound when one considers economic price nation pays when trade intercourse throttled to advantage of single powerful neighbor. It has hollow sound when one considers instances interference in internal affairs of states of this region past few years.
Freedom nagivation is important objective American foreign policy. We regret it not been possible for us to reach agreement here on convention which would guarantee that freedom on Danube. In absence guarantees we cannot accept treaty which now before conference.
When ships can again freely go up and down river, revival trade should bring immediate benefits to nations of both eastern western Europe. It is in fact one of conditions Europe’s recovery.
[Page 719]American people have undertaken unprecedented program long-term aid Europe. They have real abiding interest in what happens on Danube. They will not lose that interest merely because this conference not found agreement on way to restore Danube to its great usefulness to people Europe. [Dustmann.]
- The quotation is here printed in accordance with the slight correction sent in telegram Deldu 85 from Belgrade on August 21, 1948.↩