840.811/8–748: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State
Deldu 40. From Dustmann for Michael McDermott and Dunning. For release to press after 8:30 AM Belgrade time August 7, 1948. Following is statement to Danube Conference of Chairman Cannon of US delegation:
In closing the debate on the Soviet Union and the United States drafts yesterday, the Delegate of the Soviet Union mentioned several points of difference which are important to the very substance of our discussion.
First as regards the approach of this conference to whole problem: Mr. Vyshinski said “I would say in general that what is acceptable in the US draft can be found in Soviet draft and what is not in Soviet [Page 668] draft cannot be accepted. It cannot be accepted either by Soviet Delegation or by other six riparian states.”
Mr. President, if that is the firm position it would mean that it is almost useless for the conference to go through the motions of committee discussion. I feel sure Mr. Vyshinski did not mean just that. I am indeed ready to go into committee and I truly hope that all of us will in fact be willing to hear each other, and seek some area of agreement.
The principal points of the US proposal to which serious objection has been raised are these: (1) The language of Article 1. (2) The powers to be given to the commission. (3) Relationship with the United Nations. (4) Membership of the commission.
Let me say just a few words on each of these points.
Mr. Vyshinski says that our Article 1 “defeats the principles” accepted by the Four Powers in 1946 in the peace treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania. He says that it “deviates” from the formula set forth in the US draft preamble. Comparing the two texts just what is the significant difference? The preamble says: “Navigation on the Danube shall be free and open to the nationals, vessels of commerce and goods of all states on a footing of equality in regards to port and navigation charges and conditions for merchant shipping”.
Article 1 says: “International navigation on the Danube River system shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce, goods and persons of all states on a footing of entire equality without discrimination”.
Comparing the two texts, what is the significant difference? It is the phrase in our Article 1 “without discrimination”.
I shall not dwell on implications.
But there is, of course, no real discrepancy. Mr. Vyshinski has had a lot of experience in drafting agreements. He knows that a preamble sets the background and outline to be developed in subsequent articles. But if this language “defeats the principles” of the earlier formula, then the earlier language was an empty formula. To the US it was not an empty formula at the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, nor in the peace treaties. We meant it then and we mean it now. To us the “freedom of navigation” means more than allowing a vessel to move through the water. It means access to port facilities and those other things set out in our draft articles which in fact are merely an elaboration of the term “conditions for merchant shipping” which is in the preamble to which no objection has been raised.
The provisions of Article 1 of the Soviet draft were agreed upon almost two years ago. The peace treaties have been in effect for almost a year. Still the Danube River has not resumed its normal traffic. Though the US has persistently tried for the past three years to open [Page 669] up the river, there is no movement across the US–Soviet occupation line in Austria.
This relative stagnation on the river is clear evidence that the Soviet article is not enough. Practical provisions in the convention are needed if a revival of commerce is to be encouraged.
Article 17 of the US draft was criticised on the ground that it is contrary to the principle of sovereignty and equal rights of states. In its judgment rendered in August 1923 in the case of the SS Wimbledon regarding the refusal to permit a foreign vessel to pass through the Kiel Canal, the permanent Court of International Justice said: “The Court declines to see in the conclusion of any treaty by which a state undertakes to perform or refrain from performing a particular act an abandonment of its sovereignty. No doubt any convention creating an obligation of this kind places a restriction upon the exercise of the sovereign rights of the state, in the sense that it required them to be exercised in a certain way. But the right of entering into international engagements is an attribute of state sovereignty”.
In so far as the rights of riparian states are concerned, the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of the Soviet draft, establish special river commissions on the Maritime Danube and at the Iron Gates which are much more subject to abuse than Article 17 of the US draft.
Under Articles 17 and 18 of the Soviet draft, two states would have complete authority to control the Danube gateway to and from the sea and two other states, complete authority at the important Iron Gates sector of the river. Such an arrangement can hardly be compatible with the rights of the other riparian states on the fluvial Danube.
While the US draft has been represented as a grave threat to the sovereign rights of the riparian states, the argument has been presented that the joint shipping companies organized in Hungary, Rumania, and Yugoslavia, are in no sense a derogation of the sovereignty of these states. It has been denied that Soviet participation in joint companies constitutes Soviet control. It had been asserted that the sovereignty of these countries is in no way infringed because the chairmen of the companies are always nationals of the country concerned. The important fact is not the nationality of the chairman, but the fact that in Hungary and Rumania, in any event, the general managers of the companies, in whom resides the effective control, are Soviet citizens.
In our discussion in the committee, I shall document in detail the privileged position of the joint companies.
I am surprised that the Soviet delegate, with his wide experience in United Nations affairs, would interpret Article 25 of the US draft as giving the Economic and Social Council full responsibility for the implementation of the principle of freedom of navigation on the Danube. I think he would not seriously argue that association with the [Page 670] United Nations would deprive the riparians of their rights and prerogatives as sovereign states. I am certain that he understands the procedures and powers of the Economic and Social Council well enough to know that its activities are limited to discussion and recommendation.
Soviet delegate has also objected to Article 42 providing for the settlement of disputes through the United Nations if not first resolved by the commission. The United Nations was created for the express purpose of providing machinery for the pacific settlement of disputes.
I agree with the Soviet delegate that Article 10 of the US draft concerning membership on the commission raises one of the major issues before this conference. I feel that some additional comment is required concerning the US position on membership. My previous statement set forth the bases upon which the United States rests its claim for participation. Such claim was not and is not related to the prewar statistical position of US shipping on the river, but upon the broader aspects of our interest in European economic development and our responsibilities under present and contemplated future treaties bringing the war to a close.
Let us not forget the direct interest of the US which occupies a riparian position on the Danube. The German sector of the Danube and the German Danube fleet are inseparably connected with the problems of this river. A Danube convention cannot ignore this important sector of the river. Until a sovereign German Government is established and is granted full participation in a Danube regime, the US will be responsible for representing German riparian interests.
Let us also be realistic about Austria. I assume that other riparian states are deeply interested in the development of the entire Danube as an artery of commerce and for this Austria’s central position, trading potentialities and the great river port of Vienna, are all important. If the views of this important riparian state are not taken into consideration in drafting the convention and Austria does not become a party to it and does not immediately become a member of the commission, the river will remain cut in two. The new regime would not be able to function as envisaged in either the Soviet draft or the US draft. The declaration of the Council of Foreign Ministers, which the Soviet Delegate has cited, does not bar Austria from such participation.
We also believe that non-riparian states should be represented on the commission. I gave the reasons for this view in my statement on last Wednesday.1 I wish now only to re-emphasize the importance which we attach to it.
[Page 671]Since we now turn to a resolution referring all texts to a committee, I felt it necessary to restate these points of the American draft before closing the general discussion. [Dustmann]