Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Germany and Austria, Volume VII, Part 1

396.1 BE/2–1254: Telegram

No. 464
The United States Delegation at the Berlin Conference to the Department of State¹

confidential priority

Berlin, February 12, 1954—11 p.m.

Secto 129. Department pass OSD. Following summarizes 18th meeting under chairmanship of Bidault:²

Meeting was convened at 1600 and, after brief welcoming statement of Bidault, Figl made initial speech.³

Figl began by requesting that Austrian delegation enjoy full participation in discussions on Austrian state treaty. He recalled Hitler’s subjugation of Austria in 1938 and the loss of her international freedom of action. Austrian people were overjoyed when in 1943 Moscow declaration declared annexation void and expressed desire to see Austria re-established as free and independent state. When in April and May 1945 victorious allied armies liberated Austria, Austrian people enthusiastically welcomed them and regarded occupation of their country as provisional measure necessitated by military exigencies of postwar period.

After war Austrian Government speedily normalized conditions and in November 1945 arranged for election of Austrian Parliament. In December 1945 coalition government was formed on basis of free elections. This government achieved remarkable results in economic reconstruction and in stabilizing political conditions, with assistance of allied powers. Negotiations on state treaty begun in 1946 have not been concluded owing to circumstances beyond Austria’s control. Developments seven years ago in London and progress in 1947 in Paris, London and New York gave rise to hope for speedy recovery of Austrian freedom and sovereignty. Few unagreed articles in draft treaty could be settled immediately, given good will on all sides.

Fact that state treaty not yet signed gives rise to strange situation that first country victimized by Nazis will be last to obtain freedom. Former enemy states have received their peace treaties long ago. Continuation of occupation imposed heavy burden on people. Apart from sacrifices directly connected with occupation, Austrian economy suffers also great material losses and hindrance in utilization of its resources. Although Austria is prepared to assume burdens in return for sovereignty, Austrian people and government feel economic terms laid down in draft treaty, particularly Article 35, unduly hard and inconsistent with economic capacity of country. Amount provided for redeeming German assets and its payment in dollars instead of goods appears inequitable, all the more so since agreement on article reached in 1949 and Austria has had to make further extraordinary sacrifices during subsequent five years. Furthermore, Article 35 clauses regarding mineral oil deposits are hardly consistent with Austrian sovereignty, for, as was stated in unanimously adopted resolution 626 of 6th GA of December 21, 1952, right of every nation freely to use and exploit its natural wealth and resources is inherent in its sovereignty and is in accordance with purposes and principles of the Charter. This GA resolution also recommended that member states refrain from all acts impeding exercise of these sovereign rights. Figl then proposed revision of economic terms of draft treaty, particularly Article 35, in sympathetic and generous spirit.

Figl declared acceptance of every term of present draft of state treaty which would secure Austria’s full independence, freedom and sovereignty. He recalled that at beginning of conference Soviet Foreign Minister had said millions of people expect answer to question whether Berlin conference will contribute to strengthening of peace, relaxation of tension and guaranteeing security in Europe. This, Figl concluded, could be done and also long overdue freedom could be granted seven million Austrians, by giving state treaty to Austria.

After thanking Figl for his statement and expressing pleasure at his presence, Eden began statement by recalling first Austrian Government was formed eight years ago.⁴ He complimented it on its economic and parliamentary successes and on its wisdom in international matters. He expressed hope that agreement will be reached on some arrangements to permit Austrian delegation to play appropriate part in conference. He endorsed Figl’s expressed hope that four powers will reach agreement on Austrian state treaty before end of conference and recalled that more than ten years have passed since Moscow declaration.

Eden did not think it should be too difficult to reach agreement and noted that 47 articles are already agreed. Surely conference can reach agreement on remaining five. Austrian question stands on its own, and its solution need not await solution of unrelated problems in any other part of world. Signature of treaty would be practical sign that way has been found to relax international tension.

Referring to Article 35, Eden recalled that article was agreed on with intention of compensating USSR for damage suffered. But during past four years, Austria has already fulfilled more than original intention. Eden was sure Molotov will wish to make some suggestion how to meet Figl’s appeal and assumed all present want to make sure Austria’s economy is sufficiently robust to enable her to maintain her independence.

In conclusion, Eden expressed hope speedier progress will be made on Austrian item than on earlier ones. All that need be done is to complete treaty on which so much agreement has already been reached. He thereupon made following formal proposal:

“The delegation of the United Kingdom (recalling) that agreement has previously been reached by the four powers on 47 articles of the draft Austrian state treaty, (Proposes) that the four Foreign Ministers conclude the said treaty at this conference by reaching agreement on the points hitherto reserved in Articles 16, 27, 42, 48 and 48 bis and by consideration of the request of the Austrian delegation concerning Article 35.”⁵

Molotov began by expressing pious hope for urgent settlement of Austrian question, conclusion of state treaty and reestablishment of free and independent Austria which would meet interests of European peace and ensure recognition of Austrian national rights.⁶ He thought it abnormal that seven years of negotiation have not yet produced treaty and recalled that it took two years to agree in 1949 on former German assets and on most of the treaty clauses.

Then, he continued, new obstacle arose due to unwillingness of US, UK and France to fulfill their obligations under Italian peace treaty in regard to Trieste which they turned into Anglo-American military base. It is quite natural, therefore, for Soviet Government to seek to preclude same thing happening in Austria. Another obstacle arose in 1952–53 when Western powers with Austrian connivance, pressed for draft abbreviated treaty which ignored Austrian democratic rights and Soviet rights under Potsdam Agreement to former German assets. He understood this draft has now been withdrawn.

Molotov thought it should be possible to abolish all four power occupation bodies in Austria if new article is written in state treaty which precludes drawing Austria into any military alliance against any of allies and which prevents building foreign military bases on Austrian territory. He alleged that West German militarists and monopolists, abetted by certain representatives of Austrian ruling circles, are planning a new Anschluss and that in the absence of a German peace treaty no satisfactory guarantees are possible against resurgence of West German militarism and revanchism. Therefore, he contended, the four powers should take measures to preclude Anschluss and preserve Austrian independence. Soviet proposals for German peace treaty are well suited for this purpose.

Molotov welcomed presence of Austrian delegation during discussion of item three, although he thought it unfortunate three Western powers had rejected invitations to East and West Germans. He agreed to Figl’s proposal that sum stipulated in Article 35 to pay USSR for former German assets should be paid in goods rather than dollars, but expressed view that new discussions on other provisions of Article 35 would yield nothing but new complications and postponements as far as state treaty concerned.

Despite all that has been heard of Austrian sacrifices during war, one must not forget that Austrian troops caused enormous damage in Soviet Union. Moscow declaration also provided that Austria bears responsibility for her part in war. Despite that, no obligations have been placed on Austria to make good damage she caused Soviet Union. Article 35 refers only to former German assets, and these would become Austrian property after termination of period prescribed in treaty.

Molotov then put forward proposal on Austria, which has been reported in separate telegram.⁷

Secretary’s statement, which followed, also has been reported in separate telegram.⁸

Next statement was that of Bidault who began by referring approvingly to Figl’s statement.⁹ France has always tried to second claims considered justified on part of Austrian delegation and has strived to have returned to Austria those sovereign rights solemnly pledged to her over ten years ago. Bidault saw no excuse for further procrastination on Austrian state treaty. Reestablishment of Austrian sovereignty would be important token for stability of peace itself and independence of Austria is fully guaranteed by terms of treaty. He did not think Austrian question, which is ripe for solution in its own right, should be linked to any issue foreign to Austrian question itself. Discussion may well elicit justification of Austrian contentions that economic provisions of draft treaty should be altered to make them less stringent. France supports British proposal that conference should conclude treaty by reaching agreement on the as yet unagreed six articles.

Following 20 minute recess, four Foreign Ministers agreed that Austrian delegation might be present at any meeting when Austrian problem is discussed. Foreign Ministers also agreed to continue discussion of Austrian question at February 13 meeting at 1500.¹⁰

Session adjourned at 1905.

1. Repeated to Bonn, Frankfurt, Vienna, Moscow, Paris, and London.
2. The U.S. Delegation verbatim record of the fifteenth plenary, USDEL PLEN/15, is in Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 195.
3. For Figl’s speech, circulated as FPM(54)52, see Berlin Discussions, pp. 175–178, or Cmd. 9080, pp. 131–133.
4. For Eden’s statement, circulated as FPM(54)53, see Berlin Discussions, pp. 179–180, or Cmd. 9080, pp. 133–134.
5. This proposal was circulated as FPM(54)58 in the records of the conference.
6. For Molotov’s statement, circulated as FPM(54)54, see Cmd. 9080, pp. 134–139; it includes the text of the Soviet proposal referred to below.
7. For the Soviet proposal, transmitted in Secto 130 from Berlin Feb. 13 (396.1 BE/2–1354), see FPM(54)55, Document 519.
8. Transmitted in Secto 126, infra.
9. For Bidault’s statement, circulated as FPM(54)57, see Cmd. 9080, pp. 141–142.
10. On Feb. 13 Thompson informed the U.S. Delegation that he did not believe Molotov’s proposal was hopeless, but suggested that it should be probed deeply to see whether the Soviets were willing to conclude an agreement at that time. (Telegram 3494 from London, 763.0221/2–1354)