740.00119 Council/6–1749: Telegram
The United States Delegation at the Council of Foreign Ministers to the Acting Secretary of State
Delsec 1910. Following is CFM situation re both German and Austrian questions. Re German question we, French and British agree to accept Vishinsky’s proposals sent you in Delsec 1908.1 In discussion of deletion of paragraph 3(a) (ii) of our modus vivendi paper,2 Vishinsky made it clear he finds it impossible accept new drafting because of prestige considerations relative to linking of Berlin with Western zones. He agreed that if question of balance as explained by Secretary actually arose, it could be settled in any trade agreement or negotiations. We contemplate explaining this point in final statement in closing plenary. We see no objection accepting his reference to transit in paragraph 5. Accordingly, at secret session Monday afternoon [Page 1022] , we will presumably reach agreement on modus vivendi paper as thus modified.
Re Austria, both we and British had further full discussions with Gruber this morning after he had had several telephone conversations with Vienna. Austrians are clearly in frame of mind to yield on all eight points of Soviet requirements on German assets3 in order get treaty. Bevin takes practically same view. Schuman is more inclined to hold out strongly on certain points. After discussion of three delegates, memo was sent Vishinsky this afternoon giving further indication our position on four points which remain in dispute. Text follows in immediately following Delsec.4
Re Danube shipping, information received from Gruber reveals that transfer of dock properties claimed by Soviet would not seriously interfere with Austrian economy and in Gruber’s opinion would represent no security hazard since occupation forces withdrawn and Austrian controls reestablished. Docks would be under Austrian jurisdiction and, therefore, police control. Gruber further informs us DDSG only held leases on these docks, title being in Austrian Government. Re ship repair yards, Gruber is also satisfied Austrians have adequate other facilities and no harm in transferring Karneuberg yards to Soviet. Three Western delegates would be prepared concede this, specifically if Vishinsky demands it. We three also agree unnecessary hold up treaty by refusing making [to make?] further concessions concerning prolongation of leases to dock properties, and even perhaps transfer of actual title to property. On this point, however, we all consider we have strong logical argument and hope concession would be unnecessary.
Re question alienation in Soviet proposal No. 7, we are prepared to meet them. Re export of profits, we also are ready meet Soviets but will insist strongly on interpretation contained in papers being sent Vishinsky today.
On procedures for settlement of disputes in point eight of Soviet proposal, Gruber feels no concern and we are prepared concede full acceptance.
While we recognize that Soviets may be pressing us for further concessions, their concession on Yugoslav claims and waiver of additional claims for German assets and war booty are substantial. Our current examination problem and consultation with Austrians and [Page 1023] French and British convinces us that advantages of securing agreement main issues Austrian treaty at this CFM outweigh disadvantages of acceptance Soviet points.
Sent Department Delsec 1910, repeated Vienna 43, Berlin 269, London 414.
- Not printed: for the text of Vyshinsky’s proposal, see footnote 8 to the minutes of the 21st (6th Restricted) meeting of the Council, June 16, p. 1009.↩
- Under reference here is USDel Working Paper/32 Rev. 6, p. 1055.↩
- The text of the Soviet proposal on German Assets, CFM(D) (L) (48)1, January 24, 1948, is printed in Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. ii, p. 1448. The references below to points seven and eight of the Soviet proposal are to the numbered paragraphs of this document.↩
- The text was transmitted in Delsec 1915, June 17, not printed (740.0011 EW (Peace)/6–1749). For the text of this memorandum, see p. 1058.↩