Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Europe: Political and Economic Developments, Volume IV, Part 2

No. 935

768.5–MAP/11–551: Telegram

The Chargé in Yugoslavia (Beam) to the Acting Secretary of State ¹

secret priority

Belgrade, November 5, 1951—6 p.m.

608. Toisa.

1. Saw Vilfan Saturday afternoon at his request re mil assistance bilateral (Embtel 595²). He said he understood Gen Collins had discussed only in general terms US position on outstanding points and that Mates’ explanation as given Embtel 519³ was Yugo impression of talks. Re Amb’s approach Nov 2 (Embtel 595) fol were Yugo Govt answers:

(a) It agreed to minimum mil assistance staff of 15 officers plus 15 supporting personnel;

(b) It agreed title aid group chief shld be “mil assistance attaché”;

(c) It accepted amendments text proposed para 5, Deptel 458.⁴

Vilfan said there still seemed disagreement on question observation end-use and maintenance US material. I asked him what Yugo conception was of these functions following talks with Gen Collins. Vilfan replied Yugo Govt envisaged info wld be obtained by US inspection on “proving grounds” and by Yugo reports. I said this completely inacceptable since it represented no advance on original Mates’ proposal (Embtel 429⁵). I continued that whatever else might be required it wld be essential that US officers observe use equipment in hands Yugo troops and in the field. Vilfan said that while such formalities might be accorded, Yugo Govt cld not grant this as matter a priori right. He stated Yugos had bitter experience with Russians in this respect, that this was beginning of break with Russians and that all top Yugo officers felt strongly on this matter. Vilfan said at this time he was under instrs to make no further offer.

2. I related above to MA Col Condon who was much surprised since his informal talks with Yugo officers concerning status and functions US mil group seemed to be satisfactory. Saturday evening he saw Dep Chief Staff Manola who said FonOff statement contrary to his understanding. He said there seemed misapprehension concerning “proving grounds” which Yugo army did not have in US sense and he envisaged US officers would of course be able observe use US equipment in Yugo field exercises. He fully understood purpose US inspection with view furnishing satisfactory info and advice concerning proper and effective use US equipment and he did not contemplate difficulties wld arise. Manola was willing to pledge assurance that observation and use US material wld be carried out in cooperative manner.

3. I reported above back to Vilfan this morning mentioning misunderstanding which had arisen. I said if I was able to get FonOff confirmation and pass statements to Condon this wld represent great advance although I cld not be sure whether explanation completely satisfactory US Govt since we were not informed in precise detail of US requirements. Later in morning Vilfan called me back to say he confirmed Manola’s understanding with Condon and that this represented official Yugo Govt position. He reiterated his agreement to points 1 (a), (b), (c) above.

4. Emb including Condon feels above is sufficiently satisfactory agreement on outstanding points in advance arrival Harmony who we believe will be able work out detailed implementation. Emb’s opinion which we think shared by Amb it wld be inadvisable at this time press Yugos further for hard and fast detailed agreement on end-use check which even if obtained wld render them surly and in mood obstruct concessions won by further bargaining prior Harmony’s arrival. We shld be able test Yugos spirit cooperativeness early stage operation of agreement and if it is not forthcoming we cld have immediate recourse through withholding deliveries. Recommend Emb be authorized prepare agreement in final form for signature by Amb fol his return Nov 12.⁶

Beam

1. Repeated to Paris for Ambassador Allen who was there to attend an ECA Chiefs of Mission Conference during the first week of November.
2. Not printed, but see footnote 4, Document 933.
3. Not printed, but see footnote 2, ibid.
4. Document 933.
5. Not printed, but see footnote 3, Document 929.
6. In telegram 499 to Belgrade, November 7, the Department of State authorized the Embassy to prepare the final text of the agreement in light of the “clarifications” noted in this telegram. (768.5–MAP/11–551) Regarding the formal signing of the agreement, see Document 937.