Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Western Europe, Volume III

501.BC/10–2748: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations, at Paris

secret

Washington, November 2, 1948—7 p. m.

Gadel 376. Reply Delga 505 Oct 27¹ position Dept on Yugo charges follows: (1) When Yugo protest first considered by SC US Rep shd remind Council of charges made by Yugos on previous occasions and disposition these charges which Council saw fit to make. In light this experience, he hesitates take time Council go into these charges which as unfounded as previous and which even, in some instances, repetitions of charges which Council failed to support in past. Appears pointless burden SC with discussion these frivolous charges, but to economize SC expenditure of energy, he suggests that sub-committee (for urinfo Dept believes such group might be composed of Belgium, Canada and the Ukraine) study Yugo allegations and report to SC whether they merit consideration by full Council. Council’s attention might also be called to absence, after more than year from establishment FTT, of any report on admin Yugo Zone.² While US wld in no way suggest that any illegal actions known to have been taken by Yugo authorities in Yugo Zone are related to false accusations now before Council, we cannot help view continued silence Yugo with growing suspicion and concern.

(2) Re foregoing suggestion sub-committee: (a) If in your judgement it seems that Council can entertain Yugo charges and dispose of them expeditiously in our favor we wld prefer to have brief debate in Council itself rather than resort to sub-committee; (b) Naturally Brit and US wld have full opportunity to appear before sub-committee to present our case.

(3) For info and general guidance GADel, Dept now most desirous maintain status quo FTT; continue support Mar 20 position without going into detailed defense that position; avoid debate appointment Gov; avoid discussion Yugo Admin Yugo Zone which matter we in future desire make full subject full dress debate in presenting justification our FTT position before UN when seeking general support for proposed return FTT to Italy.

(4) Following arguments submitted for use as appropriate:

(a) Treaty makes no provision for holding communal elections during period Provis Reg. To provide some opportunity for democratic expression of will residents Zone, in absence conditions which wld permit holding elections for Constituent Assembly as provided in Peace Treaty, AMG has, in accordance with general powers of Admin conferred under Art 2 Provis Reg, ordered electoral rolls be prepared in general accord with Ital law which remains basis for Admin entire FT according Art 10. With regard to inspection electoral lists, SC may be assured elections will be held fully in accord with principles democracy.

(b) Relation Treaty to question adherence US–UK Zone to ERP appears in provision Art 2 Provis Reg that authorities FTT to be “guided mainly by needs of population and its wellbeing”, Association Recov Prog, far from being exclusive as charged by Yugos, is cooperative undertaking among large number Eur Countries, thus open to US–UK Zone. Also open to some other nations clearly in position benefit from association with RP but prevented from joining. EC Agreement Oct 15 between US–UK Zone and US Govt takes account Peace Treaty throughout and specifies Commander will carry out obligations under Agreement with due regard responsibilities under Treaty.

(c) Sep 22 Agreement³ in direct implementation Mar 9 agreements between AMG and Ital Govt, which in implementation Art 11 Provis Reg. Refer SC to relevant remarks concerning Mar 9, June 26 agreements already made by US Rep Aug meetings. Text Part 1 Art 8 Sept 22 Agreement itself explains need for price adjustment.

(d) Annex X, Art 1 provides FT receives Ital state, parastatal property. “FT” implies existence unified Territ under Gov, non-existant at present. While AMG exercises considerable control and supervision over operations state, parastatal enterprises, cld not appropriately take title to them. Therefore proferred Yugo assistance in utilizing revenues from property not required. (Foregoing subject Trieste’s comment and further info)

(5) Slid question selection Gov be raised as in Aug, may be disposed of same manner as then. No new developments this subject to change attitude shown by SC then. Also several Council members given further background by UK Govt which wld presumably make them better acquainted, more sympathetic with our position.

(6) US Rep shd at appropriate time remind Council, if discussion Yugo charges drags out, that we made clear Mar 20 our conviction FTT cld not, on unification two zones, maintain independence and integrity which Treaty prescribes, in view character Admin Yugo Zone. We are further persuaded FTT, because barriers now prevailing in Eur, economically not viable as separate entity. As consequence, where Treaty permits latitude for FTT authorities, AMG inclined, especially recently, postpone changes present laws etc. in direction establishment ultimate FTT Govt and separate Econ. Art 10 Provis Reg provides for this general approach in any case.

(7) During SC Aug consideration Yugo protests it was US intent avoid giving Yugos any opportunity use situation lessen Tito-Comin rift. Yugos, however, received apparently wholehearted support USSR, will probably receive it again present case. Presumably Yugo charges made to demonstrate solidarity with Soviet in opposition to west, show Yugo people Govt has not abandoned active interest Trieste. US attitude shd be impatience with rptd intrusions on SC with unfounded charges.

(8) You shd discuss foregoing with UK Reps to agree general approach. Burden answering electoral rolls and state, parastatal property charges might be left to Brit if they concur. Foregoing replies (4 a–d above) subject throughout Trieste comment.

Repeated to Trieste 581, Belgrade 600, Rome 2707, and London 4176.

Lovett

1. This telegram, not printed, summarized the Yugoslav memorandum, S/1954, with the initial date of October 24, 1948 (501.BC/10–2748).

   The memorandum was initially transmitted to the President of the Security Council by telegram. Various corrections were made in this text and the revised document dated November 2, 1948 was designated S/1054/Corr. 1. (UN Official Record—IO Files, Lot 60 D 463, S/1054, the official United Nations documentation for the years 1946–1956 as maintained in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs.)

2. In telegram Delga 608 from Paris, November 5, 1948, not printed, Secretary Marshall informed the Department that Yugoslavia had filed with the President of the Security Council the “annual report of the Yugoslav Army military Government on the administration of the Yugoslav Zone of the Free Territory of Trieste.” (501.BC/11–548)

   The report, not printed, was designated S/1066, and elated November 4, 1948. It was submitted under cover of a letter of November 1 from the Permanent Representative of Yugoslavia to the United Nations to the President of the Security Council. (UN Official Record—IO Files, Lot 60 D 463, S/1066).

   See footnote 3, p. 576.

3. See editorial note, p. 575.