The United States Representative at the Four-Power Exploratory Talks ( Jessup ) to the Secretary of State 1
5685. From Jessup. Seventeenth session quadripartite talks devoted discussion Austrian agenda item.2 Sov del maintained previous position that: (1) Aust Trieste questions inseparably linked and (2) Sov del desired inclusion Trieste question as separate item on agenda.
Parodi led off with statement that although divergent Sov and tripartite positions had been developed in previous mtgs deps might [Page 1107] turn to question of agreed wording for agenda item relating to Austria. Davies fol then with query as to whether Sov del cld accept tripartite formulation. Gromyko replied he cld see no reason why deps shld discuss wording this item since question of principle still not agreed. He countered with question as to whether Sov formulation Trieste item acceptable to West. Jessup sought clarification Gromyko’s remarks since he had not understood that Sov del had ever questioned that FonMins wld discuss Aust question. Again asked whether Sov del willing accept tripartite formulation Aust item. Gromyko replied that problem not one of wording but one of differing opinions. Said tripartite wording presented no real difficulties but Sov del first desired know whether three powers accept Soviet wording re Trieste.
Jessup recounted previous discussions in which three powers pointed out: (1) no connection between Austria and Ital peace treaty; (2) record of Sov obstruction re conclusion Austrian treaty culminating in introduction extraneous Trieste question at late date; (3) three powers not accept idea any connection between Trieste and fulfillment Moscow agreement 1943.3 Jessup inquired whether, if Sov del feels FonMins shld discuss Sov allegations re Ital treaty, it shld be discussed under fulfillments treaty obligations, which occurs in both Sov and tripartite proposals, or whether Sov del thinks agenda shld specify every treaty or agreement concerning which any FonMin might raise questions. Pointed out if Gromyko taking position FonMins cannot discuss fulfillment obligations without specific mention of treaty or agreement on agenda, necessary for deps make complete catalogue. Jessup felt this wld load agenda with unnecessary detail.
Davies reviewed briefly Sov obstructions re conclusion Aust treaty, making fol points: (1) Gromyko’s remarks raised doubts re seriousness Sov intent conclude Aust treaty and Trieste gambit merely pretext for further delay; (2) public opinion clear on fact Sovs attempting escape obligation, assumed under Moscow declaration; (3) no foundation for Sov allegation re Western use of Trieste or Austria as military bases; and (4) if Sovs desire discuss Trieste in FonMin mtg, they free do so but this desire no excuse for separate treatment Trieste question in agenda.
Gromyko developed familiar argument that Western powers responsible for violating agreements re Austria and for obstructing conclusion Aust treaty by their attitude in London deps mtg, citing Western attitude on specific articles draft Aust treaty as examples. After rejecting Davies’ statement re non-fulfillment Moscow declaration by Sovs, Gromyko claimed that three powers object each time Sov del puts forth proposals aimed at heart of Potsdam and Moscow declaration.[Page 1108]
Sov del stated flatly that Trieste shld be included in agenda as separate item and it was “not sufficient” to consider this question under fulfillment treaty obligations. Re Jessup’s query on listing of other treaties, Gromyko said he had never made such a proposal and could not see why deps shld go to extremes of not listing any treaties or of listing them all.
Gromyko said no grounds for doubt re seriousness Sov Govt intention conclude Aust treaty and that Sov Govt has more grounds for doubt this connection than West. In countering arguments re late introduction Trieste issue in Aust negotiations by Sovs, Gromyko traced UN consideration question Trieste contending that West responsible for frustration UN efforts.
Gromyko developed familiar argument that US–UK had turned Trieste into military base in violation Ital peace treaty and that Western assurances of no aggressive intent do not change actual state of affairs. After stressing necessity fulfillment treaty obligations, Gromyko claimed that policy of three powers re Trieste [not?] in keeping with consolidation of peace. Drew parallel between action three powers in Trieste and in West Germany.
After developing thesis that Western powers not judges their assurances re lack of aggressive intent, Gromyko applied this reasoning to tripartite proposals re existing levels of armaments. Stated that Western allusions to strength Sov armed forces incorrect and Sov answer given in its note to UK in connection with Anglo-Soviet agreement. Stressed again Sov view that acceptance tripartite proposals would untie hands Western powers re arms race and German demilitarization [remilitarization?], citing as evidence recent US announcement that 2.9 million men under arms and US armed forces will continue increase.
Deps agreed reconvene 4 p. m. Tuesday.