740.0011 EW (Peace)/6–2049: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
2333. Herewith Dept’s comments FonOff suggestions contained ur A–1152 June 201 re Balkan Treaty implementation (Embtel 2520 June 292).
1. Propose US and UK Mins three capitals deliver parallel notes Aug 1 stating disputes not settled by three Heads Mission in two months and no mutual agreement by parties on another means of settlement therefore accordance Treaties disputes shall be referred to Comms at request US and UK.
2. US notes will give names of individuals chosen as US members, UK notes those chosen as UK members and also those chosen by Dominions. In each capital all Allied Govts concerned will select same man. Dept suggests Allied member for Hung Comm be Dominion citizen, for Rum Comm an American, for Bulg Comm an Englishman. Will submit name US member shortly for approval UK and Dominion Govts. Comms need not, in our view, be legal luminaries, although they might be.
3. We do not (and this is only major point on which Dept views differ from those of FonOff) believe notes of Aug 1 shld name proposed neutral as well as Allied members of Comms. Seems premature at this stage and might appear to give Balkan Govts better grounds for refusing name their members. Shld be sufficient to name Allied members, ask Balkan Govts name theirs, and suggest meeting to discuss choice of third.
4. Agree consolidation four or five disputes with each country into one not provided for by letter of Treaties and shld be proposed only as matter of convenience subject to consent Balkan Govts. In any case the four or five Allied powers wld all name same commissioner in each instance.
5. Case against each ex-enemy state prepared jointly shld be presented [Page 255] to Comm, as FonOff suggests, by one man for Allied powers. Dept suggests tentatively American for Bulg case, Englishman for Hung, Dominion citizen for Bum. These men wld not definitely be chosen until certain that Comms wld function, but cld be earmarked for service if necessary.
6. Treaties do not specify where Comms shld sit, but we believe three Balkan capitals logical places of meeting. Comms wld be closer to situation than if in neutral country and in better position to ask cooperation of local govts in making evidence available. Dept agrees this point need not be raised unless Balkan Govts consent to name commissioners.3
7. We assume UK is handling matter with Dominions and will ask their consent to arrangements agreed on between Dept and FonOff. Canadians occasionally consult us and we have kept them informed but expect their participation in Treaty procedures will be arranged through UK along with that of Australia and New Zealand.
Pls cable FonOff reaction this tel and results UK–Dominions consultation.4
Sent London rptd Budapest, Bucharest, Sofia.
- Not printed. It transmitted the text of a British Foreign Office communication setting forth preliminary comments to the suggestions contained in telegram 1940, June 4, to London, p. 249 (740.0011 EW (Peace)/6–2049). The Foreign Office pointed out that the attitude of the Soviet Union made it appear highly unlikely that Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania would take part in the commissions to which disputes were to be referred under the terms of the peace treaties. The Foreign Office nevertheless believed that it was necessary to make a serious effort to have the human rights disputes brought before such treaty commissions in order to clear the path for consideration of the issues by the United Nations General Assembly. The communication went on to make various proposals regarding the designation of American, British, and Dominion, as well as neutral, representatives to the treaty commissions (740.0011 EW (Peace)/6–2049).↩
- Not printed; it reported the Foreign Office’s inquiry as to the Department’s comments on the communication identified in the previous footnote (740.0011 EW (Peace)/6–8049).↩
- The Foreign Office had suggested that the treaty commissions might logically meet in some neutral country.↩
- Telegram 2782, July 15, from London, not printed, transmitted the text of a British Foreign Office communication replying to the points made in the telegram printed here. The only point of substance on which the Foreign Office differed with the Department of State was on the question of naming the American, British, and Dominion representatives to the treaty commissions. The suggestion had originally been made by the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office apologetically explained that it had experienced a certain amount of difficulty in resolving the appointments with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (740.0011 EW (Peace)/7–1549).↩