It is to be noted that on October 12, 1948, the Government of the United States demanded the return to the United States of 186 naval craft in addition to 3 icebreakers and 28 frigates. These 186 vessels at no time had been offered for sale to the Soviet Government on any basis. Even in this instance the Soviet Government has refused to meet its obligation. It is the view of the Government of the United States that the return of all lend-lease vessels is essential to the conclusion of a satisfactory over-all lend-lease settlement. It is also the view of this Government that the Soviet Government is clearly in default on its obligations by not returning these vessels to the United States. If the Soviet Government remains unwilling to return these vessels to the United States, the Government of the United States suggests that the question be resolved by submission of the matter to the International Court of Justice for adjudication. For that purpose, the Government of the United States proposes that the Soviet Government join with it in submitting the following question to the Court with the understanding that both Governments will be governed by the Court's decision. Does the failure of the Soviet Government to return lend-lease vessels to the United States, as requested by the Government of the United States, constitute a default by the Soviet Government in its obligation under Article V of the Master Lend-Lease Agreement of June 11, 1942, to return lend-lease articles when so requested? The Government of the United States therefore requests that the Soviet Government immediately make the necessary arrangements for the return of the lend-lease vessels as requested or agree to the submission of the question of the vessels as stated above to the International Court of Justice for adjudication. Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. In a note not printed. 415900-57-vol. 2-26 55. TABULAR DATA RELEASED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, APRIL 24, 19521 TABLE I.-Information on merchant vessels transferred to the U.S.S.R. under lend-lease Cost to the U. S. Government at time of acquisition ($000). * 1 broken in half; both halves salvaged and returned to the United States. 'Returned to the United States and transferred to Italy from which country originally seized by the United States in World War II. 1 Department of State Bulletin, June 2, 1952, pp. 880–881. These tables were sent to Sen. William F. Knowland of California 2050 56. NOTE FROM THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 5, 1952 3 3 EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to refer to Mr. Karavaev's note No. 44 of June 16, 1952 concerning the negotiations for a settlement of the obligations of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Master Lend-Lease Agreement of June 11, 1942. In his note of June 16, 1952, Mr. Karavaev expressed the readiness of the Soviet Government to return to the United States 186 naval craft, the return of which the Government of the United States initially requested in its note of September 3, 1948,5 and has repeatedly requested since that time. On June 18, 1952, United States lend-lease representatives in a meeting with the Soviet lend-lease delegation proposed the immediate establishment of a working group to arrange the details of the return of these vessels. The Soviet delegation, however, was unwilling to agree to the establishment of such a working group or otherwise to arrange for the return of the vessels. Thus, the Soviet Government, although formally professing its readiness to return these vessels, has not been prepared to take concrete action for this purpose. If it is in fact the intention of the Soviet Government to return these vessels, the Government of the United States desires that it be informed, without further delay, of the dates and ports of return, or alternatively of the date when Soviet representatives will be available to work out with representatives of the Government of the United States the details for the return of the vessels. 6 Mr. Karavaev's note also reiterates the desire of the Soviet Government to purchase lend-lease merchant vessels and certain of the lend-lease naval craft now in its custody. The Government of the United States had made its position with respect to lend-lease vessels clear in its notes of April 6, 1951 and January 7, 19527 and in meetings of the lend-lease delegations of our two Governments since January 1951. The offers of the Government of the United States early in the settlement negotiations to sell lend-lease merchant vessels and a number of lend-lease naval vessels were expressly conditioned upon the prompt conclusion of a satisfactory over-all lendlease settlement. When it became unmistakably clear that the Soviet Government did not intend to conclude a settlement promptly, the Government of the United States in January 1951 withdrew these offers and requested the return of all lend-lease vessels. That the Soviet Government has consistently avoided the conclusion of a prompt settlement is fully documented in the history of 1 David Bruce. 2 Georgi N. Zaroubin. Department of State Bulletin, Nov. 24, 1952, pp. 819-820. Ibid., pp. 820-821. Text quoted in part in the U.S. note of Apr. 6, 1951; supra, doc. 52. Supra, doc. 52. 7 Supra, doc. 54. the negotiations. A particular example of the attitude of the Soviet Government toward the prompt conclusion of a settlement is its failure to return the 186 vessels which were requested by the Government of the United States over four years ago and were never offered for sale. This attitude is further exemplified by the refusal of the Soviet Government to resolve the question of a financial settlement through arbitration as proposed by the Government of the United States in its note of April 27, 1951 and also by the refusal of the Soviet Government to submit the question of the return of lend-lease vessels to the International Court of Justice for adjudication, as proposed by the Government of the United States in its note of January 7, 1952. 1 Since the Soviet Government has not only failed to return the vessels but also has refused to submit the matter to adjudication, the Government of the United States must conclude that it is the intention of the Soviet Government to remain in default of Article V of the Agreement of June 11, 1942. As regards the question of a financial settlement which is also mentioned in Mr. Karavaev's note, the Government of the United States has offered to accept the sum of $800 million which it considers fair and reasonable compensation for the vast quantities of civiliantype lend-lease articles remaining in Soviet custody at the end of hostilities. However, in the interests of achieving a settlement promptly, this Government offered to reduce further the amount requested provided a truly constructive offer was made by the Soviet side. The Government of the United States, in its note of January 7, 1952, has already stated that it considers the latest offer of the Soviet Government of $300 million as far from fair and reasonable compensation for the residual lend-lease articles. Furthermore, the Government of the United States must take into account the fact that by not returning the 186 naval craft and other vessels requested, the Soviet Government is in clear default of the very agreement under which negotiations of a lend-lease settlement have been carried on since April 1947. It is the position of the Government of the United States, therefore, that when the Soviet Government has made arrangements to fulfill its obligations under Article V of the Lend-Lease Agreement of June 11, 1942, the Government of the United States in the interest of a settlement will be prepared to make further proposals concerning a financial settlement. If it is the serious intention of the Soviet Government to advance the conclusion of a mutually satisfactory settlement agreement, it can do so by returning the lend-lease vessels promptly. |