665.001/7–3151: Telegram
The Ambassador in Italy (Dunn) to the Secretary of State 1
538. Emb understands Itals are endeavoring obtain support their position re treaty revision from as many UN member govts as possible, with emphasis, of course, on LA states (Deptel 17 July 27 to Asuncion2). It is our impression Itals not yet decided on any specific UNGA action and are not at present at least thinking of UNGA as possible means of actual, legal revision. Have in mind more the possibility of a UNGA resolution expressing moral support Ital demand for revision.
I note that Dept inclined oppose raising this question in UNGA (Deptel 17 to Asuncion). Since we assume Soviets are likely raise this matter in UN we had thought preferable that we take the initiative in order to have matter presented in manner most favorable to us. Wld appear advantageous to have public endorsement large number of states outside NATO for action we propose (this predicated on assumption revision will go beyond military clauses which we consider most essential), wld also appear that Assembly discussion cld be exploited to emphasize Soviet veto of Ital UN membership.
Realize many factors this decision not known here but assume one of most important is attitude Yugoslavia. Brit Emb has informed us of Peak’s recent conversation with Kardelj. We see considerable danger in linking treaty revision to question Trieste in view urgency of former and slight apparent prospect settlement latter question. Since Yugoslavia is taking a position as intransigent as that of Ital wld hope we cld exploit this when we approach [Page 637] Yugoslavs on question treaty revision to secure at least their agreement not to oppose revision in UN. If Yugoslavs insist on retaining all of 1–b, including admittedly Ital towns, they will be in a poor position to oppose revision on the basis Trieste issue. Yugoslavs can surely not take seriously argument that revision Ital Treaty wld encourage Soviet arming of satellites since they fully aware Soviets wld take any action in this field they consider advantageous. Yugo’s Amb here, in informal conversation with Brit Min, suggested Yugoslavia cld make no concessions in 1–b on ground that to do so wld merely encourage Ital claims beyond FTT. While there has been recent mention this area by PriMin and Ital press we do not believe there is or will be any serious agitation regain territory lost to Yugoslavia but surely best means of forestalling any such development wld be settlement Trieste issue by agreement between Italy and Yugoslavia.
Both Brit and French Embassies here have shown considerable interest in possibility of Trieste settlement. Emb will submit separate report of recent informal conversation Brit Amb with Political Director FonOff in which Amb, speaking personally strongly, urged a determined effort at settlement.
- Repeated to London, Paris, Belgrade, and Trieste.↩
- In response to several inquiries from Latin American countries about revision of the Italian Peace Treaty in the General Assembly, the Department of State informed the Embassy in Paraguay in telegram 17 that consultation with nations who were not signatories to the treaty was not contemplated and that the General Assembly was not considered an appropriate forum for treaty revision. (665.001/7–2451)↩