740.0011 EW (Peace) /6–1749
Memorandum by the United States, United Kingdom, and French Delegations at the Council of Foreign Ministers1
[Austrian Treaty]
As result of discussions on Austria yesterday,2 there appear to be four points still at issue and it may be of assistance briefly to recapitulate views of delegates of Western powers on these four points in order that Soviet delegation may have them in mind when Ministers meet again on Sunday.
Delegates of Western powers suggested that these four points should be referred to Deputies for further study. But in desire to clarify these matters here as far as possible they wish express their views on points which Deputies should cover in preparing text.
1. Danube shipping:
Soviet proposal states: “Soviet Union shall receive assets located in Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria and likewise 100 percent of assets of Danube shipping company which are located in Eastern Austria.” Yesterday we proposed that this question should be referred to Deputies in order that they might seek solution which would transfer to Soviet Government some but not all of dock installations in Soviet zone of occupation, balance of value being made up by allocation of shipping now in Western Zones of Austria. Upon further study we [Page 1059] understand that docks themselves which are situated Vienna are not property of DDSG but property of Austrian Government which has leased them to company. Therefore assets in question claimed by USSR consist of leases and installations. If dock installations are to be transferred to USSR transfer would therefore include installations and leases. It might further be provided that these leases would not be canceled or modified by Austrian Government without consent of USSR.
2. Alienation of former German Assets:
Soviet proposal reads: “All former German assets which have come into possession of USSR shall not be subject to alienation without consent of USSR.” Inasmuch as it has been agreed that property rights and interests transferred to USSR are in general subject to Austrian jurisdiction, delegates of Western powers are prepared accept foregoing Soviet position with understanding as to leases for docks referred to in previous paragraph.
3. Exports of profits:
Soviet proposal reads: “Undertakings covered by definition of assets above-mentioned shall operate in accordance with Austrian legislation on condition that Austria shall not raise any difficulties in regard to export of profits or other income in form of output or freely convertible currency.”
This text is not clear and delegates of Western powers suggest that it should be clarified by Deputies. It should be possible agree to test which would give satisfaction to Soviet Government if Soviet proposal means (a) that “profits or other income” are to be determined according to Austrian law as applicable to Austrian-owned enterprises; (b) that Austrian Government can elect whether such “profits or other income” are to be exported in kind or in freely convertible currency; and (c) that all other exports shall be made in accordance with Austrian law.
4. Settlement of disputes:
Soviet proposal reads: “Any disputes which may arise in connection with application of provisions of article covering German assets in Austria shall be settled by means of bilateral negotiations between interested parties.”
Delegates of Western powers would like this text referred to Deputies in order study addition of a provision stating that in event of disagreement between parties, provisions of Article 50 or 57 of treaty shall operate.