Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1944, General: Economic and Social Matters, Volume II

340.70/11–144: Telegram

The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Gallman) to the Secretary of State

London, November 1, 1944—7 p.m.
[Received November 2—9:38 a.m.]

9446. To Berle from EITO Delegation. ReDepts 9033, October 28; 9074, October 31. The following analysis is without reference to the present Soviet withdrawal.

1. As indicated in Embassy’s 9316, October 28 and 9258, October 27, the Continental Delegations—with the exception of Yugoslavia which at the meeting held on October 27 associated itself with the position of the USSR with respect to the commitments of sections 4 and 5 of Article VIII—expressed themselves as in accord with the general view of the organization taken by the US and UK Delegations and with their position on the commitments of Article VIII. Minutes of the meeting in question containing the statements of the Delegations are enclosed in Embassy’s despatch No. 18928.⁶⁹ The line-up was particularly clear-cut with respect to section 5 of Article VIII. The remarks of the Continental Delegations ran as follows: In supporting the printed text with the French amendment substituting “recommendations” for “directions” as against the Soviet text, Levy of the French Delegation said that, “If the organization were to have no executive powers at all, it might be doubted whether it was worthwhile setting it up.”’ The Greek Delegation agreed with the text as amended by the French Delegation. The Netherlands Delegation supported draft as amended by French, stating that, “in their view the wording of the Soviet amendment weakened the organization to such an extent that its purpose became vague and the whole scheme risked becoming null and void.” Norwegian Delegation “warmly supported the position taken by the Netherlands Delegation.” The Polish Delegation agreed with the French amendment. The Czechoslovak delegate after remarking that there was not a great difference in the wording proposed by the French and Soviet Delegations, said “there was, however, a difference between the two conceptions of the organization held by the Soviet Delegation and the American Delegation.” They approved the change from “directions” to “recommendations” and supported the French proposal. The Belgian delegate stated the readiness of his Delegation “to accept any arrangement which would facilitate the resumption of traffic. They are in favor of international cooperation and international action, particularly in the field of transport, and hence they much preferred to remain in the spirit of the printed text.” The Yugoslav delegate supported the Soviet proposal, stating this to be the case especially after the explanation given by M. Khachaturov^69a [“] that member governments would voluntarily execute as far as possible the recommendations of the organization and this attitude was strengthened by the new section proposed by the Soviet Delegation.” The Luxembourg delegate was not present at this meeting.

2. The British have shown no tendency to take a position different from ours but believe that they would join us in a compromise with the Russian position along lines suggested in Embassy’s 9364 of October 30 if we think that it is desirable.

3. The British have always indicated their belief that the effectiveness of the organization would be greatly reduced if its functions were purely advisory. It is our opinion that the prevailing view of the Continental Delegations is in agreement with this belief. Some of their remarks to this effect were quoted above. Masaryk’s strong statement was quoted in Embassy’s 9258, October 27. Levy has repeated to us privately a number of times the remark quoted above. The Dutch have similarly expressed themselves. The Belgians told us that they believed that the organization must have “some overriding authority.” When we asked if they thought the other Continental Delegations agreed with them, they said that they did think so. From one of the Czech delegates who came to see us last Friday⁷⁰ we gathered the impression that while the Delegation felt that the organization must have some powers, they hoped that some compromise could be found which would be satisfactory to the Russians and they believe that the Russians would like to be offered a compromise which they could gracefully accept.

While as indicated above we believe that the Continental Delegations feel strongly that a purely advisory organization would be inadequate to handle quickly the transport problem envisaged, we also believe that while only the Czechs have been articulate on the subject the others would also like to see agreement with the Soviets and would accept a compromise. We believe they would even accept a compromise which would substantially reduce the effectiveness of the organization but that its prestige at the outset would in their eyes be correspondingly reduced. We believe that the reluctance of the French and Dutch to accept the latter would be particularly strong.

4. British views that have been expressed to us have been opposed to the establishment of a transport organization in Europe without the Russians. Such expressions of views it should be noted antedated the present withdrawal of the Soviet Delegation. [EITO Delegation.]

Gallman

69. Dated October 31, not printed.
70. T. S. Khachaturov, member of the Soviet Delegation; Director General of Railway Traffic.
70. October 27.