The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom 1
2781. Re alterations reply to Sov Note proposed urtel 3180 Jun 7:2
- Dept accepts addendum following date in first sentence second para Dept’s text2 but wld prefer “reflect” rather than “govern”. Believe “govern” carries connotation of rigidity which Sovs might find convenient in countering our reply; and word “reflect” is better suited to objective of eventual Yugo-Ital agreement.
- Dept prefers retain “was” in second sentence para 2, again with propaganda effect in mind. Use of “contained” might lead to discussion of what else was in Mar 20, 1948 note. If Brit and Fr unwilling accept this change, you are auth agree to “contained”.
- Agree omission last ten words Dept’s text.
According our understanding and if Brit and Fr now agree, fol will be text of note to Sov Govt:
Begin text. US Govt has considered Sov Govt’s note of Apr 203 re FTT. US Govt rejects categorically allegation that US, UK and Fr have violated Treaty Peace with Italy re Trieste. Insofar as it has not been possible implement provisions of that Treaty, responsibility lies squarely upon Sov Govt whose conduct fol conclusion Treaty rendered settlement envisaged therein impossible of execution.
Continued admin of part of Territory of Trieste by US and UK and maintenance there of small Allied mil contingents to assist in that admin is pursuant to obligations assumed by US and UK under Art 1 of Annex VII of the Treaty.4 US and UK have, of course, never had a naval base or naval installations of any kind at Trieste.
Impossibility of execution of Treaty was at basis of proposal addressed by three Govts to Sov Govt on Mar 20, 1948, which proposal has continued reflect attitude of US Govt. Far from representing an attempt violate Peace Treaty as Sov note further alleges, this proposal was an invitation to Sov Govt join in amending Peace Treaty to achieve a permanent, peaceful settlement of Trieste question based on consideration of welfare and wishes of inhabitants of area. US Govt is convinced that such a settlement can best be achieved by agreement among parties directly concerned. Sov Govt’s latest intervention this question was obviously designed sow confusion and impede such mutually satis agreement and hence injure cause of peace. End text.
Re penultimate para urtel 3180 Dept has no objection giving detailed rebuttal Sov charges to press as background, and will prepare similar background for use here. In this connection, Dept notes error of fact in second sentence third para Brit long draft reported urtel 3088 Jun 2,5 in that Sovs agreed accept Buisseret, a candidate for governor not proposed by Sovs, as early as Oct 10, 1947 in private mtg SC permanent members. While we may not wish in view confidential nature private mts on governor, give such detail to press, believe errors of fact shld be avoided in background material.
Dept had been under impression our replies wld be delivered in Moscow, where Sov note delivered. Believe that considerations of speed, accuracy and joint timing adequately met by this procedure. Emb Moscow hereby authorized deliver text quoted above to Sov Govt upon receipt similar instrs Brit and Fr Embs, and in consultation with them. As soon as delivery confirmed, Dept will hand copies US note to Ital and Yugo Embs here and will assume Brit and Fr FonOffs acting similarly.
- Repeated to Rome 2022 re Rome’s 2383 June 7, Paris 2659, Belgrade 442, Trieste 336, and Moscow 498.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- See editorial note, p. 1317.↩
- For text of the Treaty of Peace with Italy, see Department of State Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS) No. 1648, or 61 Stat. (pt. 2) 1245.↩
- Not printed; it reported the text of the British long draft which reads in paragraph 3: “The note alleges in the first place that HMG, together with the US and French Governments, by hindering the appointment of a governor of Trieste prevented the establishment of the regime contemplated in annexes vi and vii of the Peace Treaty with Italy, of which the latter provides in its first article that the governor should assume office at the earliest possible moment after the treaty had come into force. The truth is that although the treaty came into force on September 15, 1947, it was not until January 1948 that the Soviet Government had agreed to accept any candidate for the post of governor other than one proposed by themselves and they rejected all the numerous candidates proposed by other governments without giving any reason. It was in fact the obstructive attitude of the Soviet Government towards the choice of a governor which made it impossible to carry out the intentions of the peace treaty, and which was instrumental in causing HMG to join the US Government and the French Government in making the proposal referred to in their public tripartite declaration of March 20, 1948, to which HMG still adhere. Far from representing ‘an attempt to violate’ the peace treaty, as the Soviet note further alleges, the proposal took the form of an invitation to the Soviet Government to join in amending the peace treaty by subscribing to an additional protocol. The Soviet Government not having accepted the proposal of the Three Powers, it has not been implemented. Meanwhile, in the absence of agreement on the part of all concerned to a final solution of the problem British and US troops have continued to occupy Zone ‘A’ in accordance with the peace treaty.” (750G.00/6–250)↩
- Gen. Terence Airey, Commander of the British-United States Zone of the Free Territory of Trieste.↩
- Not printed.↩