Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

840.811/8–1648: Telegram

The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State

us urgent

Belgrade, August 16, 1948.

Deldu73. From Dustmann to Michael McDermott and Dunning. Statement by Cannon support UK amendment to Article 41¹ August 16. USDel gives full support to British amendment to Article 41 Soviet draft.²

First part that amendment similar to our new article.³ For that reason I willing consider discussion on British amendment as covering also article proposed by USDel; I shall not ask Peak [to speak] again concerning US amendment unless points raised this debate to which I might wish reply.

View of US that new regime for Danube should be brought into association with UN already been set forth. I want say again that support of UN is cornerstone American foreign policy. We want see its authority, prestige strengthened every way.

To this end we have proposed there be formal relationship between Danube Commission and appropriate body UN. This relationship would not place Danube Commission under control UN. Commission would retain autonomy just as those various specialized agencies, such as International Bank, UNESCO, WHO have retained full autonomy after establishing formal relationship with UN through agreements negotiated with ECOSOC.

Freedom of navigation on Danube and increased flow trade which would bring about are matters primary interest to Economic Commission Europe and ECOSOC. In our amendment, however, we left language general terms. We want emphasize general principle association with UN. Detailed arrangements could not be decided this conference alone, but have be worked out later between Danube Commission and UN.

I turn to third paragraph British amendment dealing with settlement disputes concerning interpretation or application convention. USDel attaches great importance this matter. All nations whether riparian or not, whether parties to convention or not, should have access to impartial tribunal for settlement disputes which not resolved directly between parties concerned or by commission to satisfaction parties concerned. Article 41 Soviet draft does not provide for appeal beyond Danube Commission since chairman would name that member of proposed conciliation commission who would have decisive vote. Access to impartial tribunal is essential safeguard to make sure freedom navigation not only provided in convention but observed in practice. Important thing is to settle such disputes by final binding decisions of judicial body.

Obviously body best qualified to make such legal decisions is International Court. In case disputes likely endanger peace security, recourse could be had to sounder [ SC under] appropriate articles charter. Peace treaties with Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary provide impartial tribunal empowered hand down binding decisions in event other methods do not succeed. Formula found Article 38 Rumanian peace treaty. I will read only pertinent section:⁴

This arrangement is in our view less satisfactory than reference International Court. US originally hoped to have provision for reference disputes to court. But treaty text does provide for binding decision reached with participation or assistance duly constituted authorities UN. USDel does not see how can do less than that in this matter before us.⁵ [Dustmann.]

Cannon

1. The proposed amendment of the United Kingdom called for the deletion of Article XLI of the draft convention of the Soviet Union and its replacement by this new article:

   • “1. Upon the entry into force of the present Convention, the Danube Commission shall immediately establish contact with the United Nations in order to submit to the appropriate agency of the United Nations the annual reports on the application of the present Convention.
   • 2. A Conference of the signatories of the present Convention shall be convoked every three years by the Secretary General of the Danube Commission with a view to examining all the questions that may arise in connection with the present Convention.
   • 3. All questions relative to the interpretation or application of the present Convention shall be submitted to the Danube Commission. If the Danube Commission is unable to settle a difference that was submitted to it relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, this difference shall be submitted if two or more members of the Commission so demand within 6 months of examination by the Commission for decision by the agency established by the United Nations Charter in virtue of the provisions of this Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
     If one State neglects to execute a decision taken by the Danube Commission in virtue of the powers it derives from the present Convention, the difference may also be submitted to the agency mentioned in the preceding paragraph.”

2. The text of Article XLI in the Soviet draft convention is:

   “Any dispute between the parties to this Convention with respect to the application and interpretation of the Convention which cannot be resolved by direct negotiation shall be, at the request of either party to the dispute, referred for settlement to a Conciliation Commission composed of one representative of each party and one representative appointed by the Chairman of the Danube Commission from among the nationals of States, not parties to the dispute, and in case the Chairman of the Commission is a national of the State, party to the dispute, the appointment shall be made by the Danube Commission.

   The decision of the Conciliation Commission shall be accepted by the parties to the dispute as definitive and binding.”

3. The new article which the United States delegation proposed to follow Article XLI of the Soviet draft convention read:

   “The Danube River Commission shall be brought into association with the appropriate organ of the United Nations.

   The Commission shall exchange information and documentation with the United Nations.

   Meetings of the Commission shall be open to representatives of the United Nations sitting as observers.”

4. The second and third sentences of Article XXXVIII, which Ambassador Cannon read at this point, are as follows:

   “Any such dispute not resolved by them within a period of two months shall, unless the parties to the dispute mutually agree upon another means of settlement, be referred at the request of either party to the dispute to a Commission composed of one representative of each party and a third from nationals of a third country. Should the two parties fail to agree within a period of one month upon the appointment of the third member, the Secretary General of the United Nations may be requested by either party to make the appointment.”

5. The article proposed by the delegation of the United Kingdom was defeated in the General Committee session on August 16 by a vote of 7 to 3. The United States proposal to insert a new article after Article XLI was similarly defeated. The article in the Soviet draft convention was adopted by 7 votes to 1, with 2 delegations not participating.