Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Germany and Austria, Volume II

740.00119 Council/3–1848: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Deputy for Austria at the Council of Foreign Ministers (Reber)

secret
us niact

Washington, March 18, 1948—8 p. m.

971. Ausdel 6. For Reber. Delsec 1638 Mar 17¹. In view position maintained by Soviet representative in treaty negotiations so far, we concur fully in your proposed course looking toward termination meetings possibly next week. New French suggestions for property items and lump-sum settlement regarded favorably as indication tripartite approach but believe this should represent approximate maximum concession to be offered by three powers. In event termination discussions on Art 35 without agreement considered desirable review all unagreed Arts at sufficient length to call attention again to our position, and wherever possible a tripartite position, on each outstanding issue. It is hoped that before this might be undertaken an approach may be made to French with view to substantial modifications of their proposals for military restrictions in Art 27 on certain research and development, manufactures and stockpiling of materials. Present overall situation in Europe may prove effective argument with French in effort to eliminate their present alignment on this question with Soviets as against Brit and US.

In general Dept stands by policy on disputed Arts set forth as US position in report of USDel ATC Oct 14, 1947. As to French view and your suggestion concerning Art 2,² Dept would readily withdraw support of para 2 relating to consultation in event of threat to the political or economic independence or territorial integrity of Austria. However, continued insistence on inclusion of para 1 is believed desirable as of possible advantage vis-à-vis public opinion in reflecting efforts of three Western powers to obtain treaty preserving independence of Austrian State. If first para is included in final treaty, it might have some value for building legal case in event possible future aggression against Austria, although it is realized indirect aggression may be the greater threat.

Art 16 in form presented ATC Report is so vitiated as compared with our original proposal on displaced persons Dept would not insist on its retention. If any Art of this character is to be included, we should hold to our present position regarding substance paras 1, 4, and 7.³

In order to lay stress on our consistent efforts to obtain a treaty assuring establishment and preservation of Austria’s independence, we still believe it desirable for USDel to issue a comprehensive statement before termination of proceedings on reasons for the breakdown, summarizing policy which we have steadily followed on the basic issues of the treaty and referring to our constant endeavor to obtain an Austrian treaty since May 1946. Concur in general with Vienna’s USDel to London 64 Mar 18⁴ just received here.

Sent London as 971 Ausdel 6; rptd Vienna as 250.

Thorp

1. Ante, p. 1478.
2. For the text of Article 2 see the Unagreed Articles of the Draft Austrian State Treaty, p. 1514.
3. For the text of Article 16, including the paragraphs under reference, see the Unagreed Articles of the Draft Austrian State Treaty, p. 1514.
4. Not printed; it suggested that emphasis be placed on Articles 25 and 26 if the negotiations broke down since Soviet intransigence would be more apparent on the military clauses than on the German assets where the issues were complex. Legation Vienna also supported the necessity for including Article 2 as a guarantee of Austria’s future independence. (740.0011 EW (Peace)/3–3148)