Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Central and Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

433.001/1–950: Telegram

The United States Delegation for Austria at the Council of Foreign Ministers to the Secretary of State

secret

London, January 9, 1950—8 p. m.

123. Delau 384. Austrian deputies 247 meeting.¹ Despite Western deputies’ expression of hope that progress could now be made since sufficient additional time had elapsed since adjournment in New York for conclusion of the Vienna talks, Soviet deputy stated Vienna negotiations were still continuing although he admitted some progress had been made in that Austrian authorities had been informed Figl’s proposals of December 5 represented advance over earlier Austrian proposals.² When western deputies demonstrated considerable impatience that extraneous issue of Vienna talks continues to block treaty progress, Soviet deputy made little or no effort to defend position and stated he could not indicate when talks will be concluded. He cited as complicating factor Austrian counterclaim for amount of civilian occupations costs (paid by Austria in behalf of USSR but not reimbursed from regular occupation schillings made available to USSR).

Zarubin called attention to unagreed Articles 16, 27, and 35 bis,³ discussion of which he observed was being deferred. Western deputies repeated previous assurances that Article 35 bis would be withdrawn when other articles are agreed and saw little point in discussing Articles 16 and 27 if progress on all outstanding issues could not be assured and Zarubin did not pursue the question. US deputy observed that, in view relatively small sums involved in Article 48 bis compared to satisfaction given USSR in Article 35, must be other reasons than those involved in Article 48 bis issue which block progress.

In response to specific British queries Soviet deputy stated (1) that while he could discuss Articles 42 and 48, he could not change his previous positions until all questions re Article 48 bis are resolved, (2) that Article 48 bis cannot be resolved in advance conclusion of Vienna talks, and (3) that reply is unnecessary to offensive inquiry as to whether USSR genuinely desires promptly to conclude treaty, adding that “no one has done more for liberation Austria than USSR”.

US deputy made formal request of Soviet deputy to obtain his government’s response to inquiry how and when Article 48 bis could be settled and suggested, in order to give adequate time for this reply, the next meeting be held January 13. Soviet deputy undertook to refer request but pointed out reply would be difficult as matter of computing claims complicated. Next meeting January 13.

Tripartite meeting this morning with Mallet and Berthelot followed lines of discussion at Foreign Office Saturday, see Delau 383.⁴ We meet tomorrow to discuss future procedure and to submit recommendations to our respective governments.⁵

Sent Department 123, repeated Paris 38, Vienna 4; Department pass Moscow 7 from London.

1. The United States Delegation minutes of this meeting are in CFM Files, Lot M–88, Box 117, USDel Mins. The CFM Files are a consolidated master collection of the records of conferences of Heads of State, Council of Foreign Ministers and ancillary bodies, North Atlantic Council, other meetings of the Secretary of State with the Foreign Ministers of European powers, and materials on the Austrian and German peace settlements for the years 1943–1955 prepared by the Department of State Records Service Center.
2. No copy of the proposals under reference has been found in the Department of State files. However, the United States Delegation minutes indicate that, according to Zarubin, they were an advance over the initial Austrian proposal and for that reason more acceptable to the Soviet Government.
3. Article 35 bis, Rolling Stock, dealt with the Austrian ownership of railway equipment including rolling stock and locomotives.
4. Not printed, but see footnote 9, p. 432.
5. In telegrams 129 and 155 (Delau 385 and 386), January 10 and 11, from London, neither printed, Reber reported another British initiative for a tripartite approach to Moscow, if Zarubin continued his negative attitude toward completion of the treaty, and transmitted the draft of such a communication which recalled past assurances given by the Soviet Deputy and enumerated the new obstacles which he had created. (663.001/1–1050 and 1150)