Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Germany and Austria, Volume VII, Part 2

663.001/10–1452: Telegram

No. 826
The United States High Commissioner for Austria (Thompson) to the Department of State¹

secret

Vienna, October 14, 1952—7 p.m.

1029. Following is Gruber’s reply to questions re UNGA discussion of Aust treaty (Deptel 948, Oct 4² and Embtel 958, Oct 7³).

“(1) The sentence contained in the memorandum of the Federal Govt that the conclusion of a peace treaty was not necessary, is based on our interpretation of the legal position, according to which Austria’s status as a state according to international law was not invalidated by the German occupation, but that Aust was merely prevented from exercising her sovereign powers. On the basis of this interpretation, which is also supported by the Moscow declaration of Nov 1, 1943, the fact of the liberation of Aust by the Allies and of the setting up of a govt chosen by free elections would—as is also pointed out in the memorandum—have to result in the automatic evacuation of the country, without having to wait for the conclusion of a treaty.

“The Federal Govt itself does not intend to take this line in the General Assembly of the United Nations, but it is possible that a third party will do this, as also other nations, e.g., Mexico, support the above mentioned legal interpretation.

“In addition, I am quite aware that the existing situation requires that certain matters be settled by a bilateral or multilateral treaty, which, in my opinion, shld present no insurmountable obstacles to an evacuation of the country.

“(2) The Brazilian resolution will be supported by US.

“(3) The Federal Govt reaffirms its relevant statement in the memorandum. Notwithstanding, it will not oppose any solution which would remove the obstacles which prevent it from exercising its full sovereignty. The Federal Govt is at the present moment unable to say how Parliament, which, according to the constitution, is the only body which has the final say concerning the conclusion of the treaty, will consider such obligations in the future. A corresponding proposal, however, can only be submitted to Parliament, as soon as a clear alternative ‘final freedom-obligations of the treaty’ has been established.

“(4) It is my intention personally to lead the Austrian delegation to the General Assembly.”

Thompson

1. Repeated to London and Paris.

2. Telegram 948 requested that the Embassy determine what the Austrian position was on the following points:

   • “1. In its memo of July [for text of this memorandum, July 31, see Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 11, 1952, pp. 221–223] Aust govt stated in part that no treaty was necessary, merely a withdrawal of occupation forces. Aust Emb Wash has intimated that Aust no longer adheres this position. In view its importance we must have official assurance from Gruber that he will not advance this stand in UNGA.
   • “2. In light of ans to 1 above are we to assume Aust govt has approved and will support draft Braz res as most desirable action expected from UN?
   • “3. Does Aust govt adhere to statement in its memo of July that long draft ‘contains a number of financial and econ provisions no longer bearable under prevailing circumstances and hardly ever acceptable to Aust Parliament’?
   • “4. Does Gruber plan attend UNGA session to present Aust case and what in broad terms is line Aust will follow in UN?” (663.001/10–452)

3. Telegram 958 briefly noted that Gruber would discuss the four questions raised in telegram 948 to Vienna (see footnote 2 above) and would reply early the next week. (663.001/10–752)