網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

If the report of Colonel Kotsiuba's statement with regard to the laws of the "German Democratic Republic" is correct, I wish to answer quite clearly that the laws of the "German Democratic Republic" can have no applicability whatsoever to the incident which I have described to you.

Finally, I expect you to take immediate measures to prevent a repetition of such incidents which, I am sure you must agree, are a violation of the established policy of free circulation in Berlin. In the meantime, I do not intend to alter the practice of maintaining radio transmitters in vehicles of Berlin Command entering the Soviet sector of Berlin, nor do I intend to tolerate any further molesting of United States personnel by members of the "Peoples' Police".

43. DETENTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN EAST BERLIN: Note From the American Ambassador to the German Federal Republic to the Soviet Representative in the Soviet Zone,2 December 1, 1955 3

1

On November 29, General Dasher, the United States Commandant in Berlin, called on General Dibrova, the Soviet Commandant, to protest against an incident which occurred on November 27. This incident involved the unwarranted detention in the Soviet sector of Berlin of an American military vehicle of the Berlin command, and its occupants, including two members of the Congress of the United States of America.

I am informed that General Dibrova refused to accept General Dasher's protest and that in justification he made certain assertions concerning the applicability to this case of the laws of the "German Democratic Republic" and the relationship between the Soviet sector of Berlin and the "German Democratic Republic".

I must renew the protest made by General Dasher against interference with the freedom of Allied circulation in Berlin and against the grossly discourteous and threatening conduct displayed toward United States citizens by persons acting under Soviet authority and control. I do not consider the attempted justification of this incident to be acceptable.

As for General Dibrova's assertions, they are wholly inconsistent with the quadripartite status of Berlin. The position of my government as regards the status of Berlin, and its attitude to the so-called German Democratic Republic, are well known to you as a result of numerous communications on these subjects from my government to your government over a considerable period of time.

You will thus appreciate that the United States Government must

1 James B. Conant.

2 G. M. Pushkin.

Department of State Bulletin, Dec. 19, 1955, p. 1013. delivered by the British and French Ambassadors.

statement of Dec. 2, 1955 (ibid., pp. 1013-1014).

Notes were also

See also Ambassador Conant's

4 See General Dasher's letter of Nov. 28, 1955, to General Dibrova; supra.

continue to hold the Soviet authorities responsible for the welfare and proper treatment of all United States citizens during their presence in those areas, including the Soviet sector of Berlin, which are subject to Soviet authority and control.

44. STATUS OF BERLIN: Remarks to the Press by the Secretary 1 of State, December 6, 1955 1

Q. Mr. Secretary, would you comment on the events in Berlin during the last week?

A. Well, do you refer to the retention, temporarily at least, of these two Congressmen that were there, or the barges?

Q. I was thinking specifically of the barges and the larger issues raised on the status of the city.

A. Well, the action taken about barges, which now is reported very largely in the press, is action that was taken last October. It is nothing that took place last week. So far there has not been any interruption of the normal movement of traffic through the canals, and we have no evidence to anticipate that there will be, although that is always a possibility. But we expect that the Soviet_will respect, and assure respect for, the agreement that was made in Paris in June, I think it was, 1949 with respect to assuring the normal access, by rail and water, of the West to Berlin. We take the position, as you know, that nothing that the Soviet itself can do can relieve the Soviet of its international obligations. We expect to hold the Soviet to its international obligations. We have no evidence as yet that those international obligations will be violated.

Q. Mr. Secretary, did the United States concur in that British concession that the East German Government could control the inland waterways? This decision, you say, was reached last October.

A. The announcement that the licenses would be issued by the East German regime, the so-called GDR, with authority in East Berlin, was, I think, acquiesced in by the British, in whose sector is, I think, the barge terminal. That took place, as I recall, last October. Now that did not involve, of course, any recognition of the exclusive authority of those German Communist authorities in that zone over the area, or any waiver of the rights which we have under the Paris agreement of 1949. If the Soviet chooses to carry that out through agents, that is its affair. But to us, the primary obligation still remains that of the Soviet Government.

1 Department of State Bulletin, Dec. 19, 1955, pp. 1010-1011.

See the quadripartite communiqué issued at Paris, June 21, 1949 (A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 110-112) and the quadripartite communiqué released at New York, May 5, 1949 (Department of State Bulletin, May 15, 1949, p. 631).

C. RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA, 1950–1955

45. COMMUNIST DISTURBANCES: Statement to the Press by the Acting Secretary of State,' October 6, 1950 2

The firmness and determination with which the Austrian people have reacted to the recent Communist-inspired disturbances in Austria and the prompt and courageous action taken by the Austrian Government and police to maintain law and order are heartening, I am sure, to the American people as a whole. The actions of the Austrian Government in this respect have the full support of this Government.

The agreement on control machinery, signed by the four occupying powers on June 28, 1946, provides that the Allied Commission shall assist the Austrian Government to recreate a sound and democratic national life based on respect for law and order. This agreement charges the Allied Commission with responsibility for maintaining law and order if the Austrian authorities are unable to do so and authorizes the High Commissioners to act independently to maintain law and order in their respective zones in the absence of action by the Allied Commission. Needless to say, this Government will take all proper action to fulfill its international commitments with respect to the maintenance of law and order in the areas of its responsibility in Austria.

46. COMMUNIST DISTURBANCES: Message From the Acting Secretary of State to the Austrian Chancellor,5 October 7, 1950 6

4

I have just received your telegram of October 57 addressed to Mr. Acheson in which you refer to the urgent request submitted by your Government to the Allied Council to take immediately appropriate measures to enable the Federal Government to accomplish its constitutional duties and appeal to the U.S. Government as an occupying power to support your Government in its efforts to maintain order.

The actions taken by your Government to maintain law and order in the face of recent Čommunist-inspired and Soviet-supported disturbances have the full support of this Government. I am particularly gratified at the courageous and determined manner in which

8

1 James E. Webb.

2 Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 16, 1950, p. 616. 3A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 614-620. James E. Webb.

Leopold Figl.

Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 23, 1950, p. 657.

The telegram of October 5 was from Karl Gruber, the Austrian Foreign Minister; ibid.

8 See the note of Nov. 10, 1950, from Adm. Alan G. Kirk, American Ambassador at Moscow, to Andrei Gromyko, the Acting Soviet Foreign Minister; infra.

your Government and the Austrian people have met and are meeting their responsibilities in the face of these illegal acts. Please be assured that this Government will take all proper action to fulfill its international commitments with respect to Austria and in particular to assure the maintenance of law and order in the areas of its responsibilities in Austria. Appropriate instructions are being issued to the United States High Commissioner.

I issued a statement to the press along the foregoing lines shortly prior to the time your telegram came to my attention and I hope that my views, and I am sure I speak for the American people as a whole, will serve to assure your Government and people of our confidence in them and of our deep appreciation of the firmness of purpose which they have displayed in their efforts to maintain independence and freedom of action under these trying circumstances.

47. COMMUNIST DISTURBANCES: Note From the American Ambassador at Moscow to the Acting Soviet Foreign Minister,3 November 10, 19501

The Ambassador of the United States of America presents his compliments to the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. and has the honor to invite the Acting Minister's attention to the discussions which took place in the Allied Council in Austria on October 13, 1950, during which the Soviet representative maintained the untenable point of view that mob violence in the Soviet zone of Austria is not properly the concern of the Allied Council and that actions taken by a local Soviet commander may not be discussed by the Council. This assertion cannot, of course, be accepted by the Government of the United States since the control agreement for Austria of June 28, 1946,5 makes it clear that the Allied Council may and should concern itself with any matter relating to the maintenance of law and order and with any derogation of authority guaranteed by agreement to the Austrian Government.

The Soviet Government must be fully aware of the incidents which gave rise to the statement of the Soviet representative in the Allied Council, the more so since he, himself, at no time denied that they had occurred. However, for convenience, they are briefly recapitulated below:

In the course of demonstrations in the Soviet zone of Austria on October 4 and 5, 1950, the Soviet commander in the city of Wiener Neustadt obstructed efforts of the Austrian police to restore general order and ordered the police to return the federal post office to the control of the lawless mob, which had been ejected by the police, after it had illegally occupied the building. Further, this Soviet

[blocks in formation]

commander ordered the withdrawal of the police sent to Wiener Neustadt by the recognized Austrian authorities to maintain order and to protect life and property from the rioters. In taking these measures, the Soviet commander threatened that the Soviet armed forces would act against the Austrian police should they fail to comply with his orders.

The law enforcement activities of the Austrian Government have been further hampered by the Soviet officer who commanded the president of the Vienna police immediately to recall to the Soviet sector any police forces employed outside that sector, not to execute the orders for dismissal and transfer of Austrian police officials without the consent of the Soviet element of the Interallied Command, and to forbid the employment of police forces of the Soviet sector of Vienna in any other sector.

As stated above, the Allied Council, by its terms of reference, clearly is called upon to concern itself with the maintenance of law and order in Austria. Thus, article 3 D of the control agreement requires the Allied Commission to assist the Austrian Government to assume full control of the affairs of state in Austria. Suppression and obstruction of police is patently inconsistent with this objective, and it is clearly the responsibility of the Allied Commission to assist the Austrian Government to recreate the respect for law and order. The support of elements of the population acting against the authority of the Austrian Government and its police and forcing the surrender of a government building to a rioting mob are contrary to this principle and call for action by the Allied Commission.

The Allied Commission did not consider that any of the three conditions set out in article 2 C of the control agreement under which they were empowered to act directly rather than through the Austrian Government was relevant in this case. The Allied Commission, therefore, took no action. Paragraph 2 D of the control agreement which authorized in certain circumstances independent action by the High Commissioners in the absence of action by the Allied Commission is equally inapplicable in this case. The Soviet commander had no justification to maintain law and order at Wiener Neustadt since Austrian authorities had already done so.

Article 1 of the control agreement states unequivocally that the authority of the Austrian Government shall extend fully throughout Austria with two exceptions, execution of directions from the Allied Commission and questions defined in article 5. In these recent events, the Allied Commission had issued no directives and certainly no situation existed in which article 5 would apply. Any move to immobilize the police and to establish internal boundaries of their authority is in conflict with the duties of the signatories of the control agreement.

The Government of the United States protests most emphatically against the perversion by the Soviet representative in the Allied Council in Austria of the clear language and intent of the control agreement of June 28, 1946, in attempting to justify unilateral controls over the Austrian police which would restrict or eliminate the authority of the Austrian Government in a part of its territory. The United

« 上一頁繼續 »