Council of Foreign Ministers

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 832-834
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Far East ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Situation ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Military Aid ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Foreign Ministers

The three foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and United States met in Washington from September 10 to 14, 1951. The agenda of the conference included items on: 1) the general situation and measures to contain communist expansion; 2) the Atlantic command and the United Kingdom suggestion for a middle east command; 3) inclusion of Greece and Turkey in the Atlantic Pact;1 4) the French plan for a European army with German units; 5) change in the three governments’ relations with Germany; 6) revision of the Italian peace treaty; 7) French and United Kingdom objections to United States activities in regard to Spain; 8) the Korean war and the consequences of the Japanese treaty on the situation in the far east; 9) war in Indo-China and the French request foreconomic and military aid; 10) question of the Austrian treaty; 11) attitude to be adopted towards communist China; 12) Iranian oil situation and the situation in the middle east; 13) economic and political measures to protect the interests of the western nations behind the “iron curtain”. This item had been suggested by the United States as a result of the Oatis case.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 178-180
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Austrian Economy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Subsequent Withdrawal ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
Made In

On December 6, 1948, a note was sent to the United States, France, USSR and the United Kingdom by the Austrian Federal Government pointing out that no progress had been made in the preparation of the Austrian peace treaty since the adjournment of the Deputies of the Council of Foreign Ministers at London in May 1948. The note declared that Austria was anxious for the conclusion of the treaty, the subsequent withdrawal of occupation forces and the elimination of the four zones artificially dividing the country, as it considered the occupation an impediment to Austrian economy.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-556
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
The Way

During the period under review, the Foreign Ministers' Deputies on the Austrian treaty, meeting in London, failed to agree on the terms of the proposed treaty of peace for Austria. Following a deadlock on the question of Yugoslavia's claims on Austria, the four-power talks were adjourned indefinitely on May 6. These claims, backed by the USSR, included a demand by Yugoslavia for 788 square miles of territory in Carinthia and Styria and $150,000,000 in reparations. The United States position, backed by the United Kingdom and France, was that Austrian territory should be restored intact as it was January 1, 1938, prior to annexation by Germany, and that Austria should pay no reparations. The indefinite suspension of the four-power talks on the Austrian peace treaty was formally reported on May 24 to the Secretary General of the Council of Foreign Ministers by Samuel Reber, United States deputy and chairman of the next meeting. The way was held open however, for the calling of the next meeting when a justifiable basis for continued negotiation was found.

Security Council

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-517
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Peace ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Foreign Ministers

The question of the threat to Thailand was discussed by the Security Council at its 673d and 674th meetings. After again explaining the reasons for his government's belief that the condition of tension in the general region in which Thailand was located would, if continued, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, the Thai representative, Pote Sarasin, again requested that the Peace Observation Commission establish a sub-commission of from three to five members to dispatch observers to Thailand and to visit Thailand itself if it were deemed necessary. The Thai draft differed from earlier Thai proposals, however, in that the original mandate of the sub-commission applie only to the territory of Thailand; if the sub-commission felt that it could not adequately accomplish its mission without observation or visit in states contiguous to Thailand, the Peace Observation Commission or the Security Council could issue the necessary instructions. Representatives of New Zealand, Turkey, Brazil, China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Colombia and France spoke in support of the Thai draft. They denied, as had been alleged by the Soviet representative (Tsarapkin) at an earlier meeting, that Council consideration or action on this question would be detrimental to the success of the negotiations between the Foreign Ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Chinese People's Republic, Soviet Union and other states in Geneva. While agreeing that it would be impropitious for the Council to consider directly the situation in Indochina as long as it was being discussed in Geneva, they argued that the question raised by Thailand was quite separate and that the Council had a duty to comply with the Thai request.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 646-650
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Ministers

On April 9, 1951, the deputies of the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union began their sixth week of Paris meetings in an attempt to frame an agenda for a conference of the foreign ministers.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-229
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
German Economy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Foreign Ministers

Proposed Meeting of the Council: Meeting in Prague on October 20 and 21, 1950, the foreign ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, eastern Germany and the Soviet Union issued a statement in reply to the communiqué on Germany released on September 19 by the foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Charging that the position of the three western governments was merely a screen to conceal the aggressive objectives of the North Atlantic Treaty and that the creation of mobile police formations was nothing less than the reconstitution of a German army, the eight foreign ministers stated that they considered as urgent 1) the publication by the three western powers and the Soviet Union of a statement of their intent to refuse to permit German rearmament and of their unswerving determination to create a united peace-loving German state; 2) the removal of all restrictions hindering the development of the peaceful German economy and the prevention of a resurgence of German war potential; 3) the conclusion of a German treaty and the withdrawal of all occupation forces within one year of its conclusion; and 4) the creation of an all-German constituent council to prepare for a provisional German government. The text of the communiqué was communicated to the United Kingdom, the United States and France under cover of a Soviet note on November 3. Stating that the Prague declaration possessed “the greatest significance for the cause of assuring international peace and security” and touched the “fundamental national interests of the peoples of Europe,” the Soviet government proposed the convening of the Council of Foreign Ministers „for consideration of the question of fulfillment of the Potsdam agreement regarding demilitarization of Germany.”

Anzus Pacific Security Pact

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-400
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Government ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
Relationship Of

The ANZUS Council held its second meeting in Washington, D.C., on September 9 and 10, 1953. While the first meeting of the Council had been devoted largely to organizational matters, the second meeting provided an opportunity for the foreign ministers of Australia, New Zealand and the United States to review the developments of the past year and to discuss common problems in the Pacific area. Prior to the opening of the meeting, there had been speculation in the press about the possibility of providing some form of associate membership in ANZUS for other countries — particularly the United Kingdom – and other international organizations. The United Kingdom was reportedly dissatisfied with its exclusion from the organization; Prime Minister Churchill had been quoted as telling the House of Commons on June 17 that he “did not like the Anzus Pact at all” and that he hoped that “perhaps larger and wider arrangements could be made which would be more satisfactory than those now in force”. According to the communique issued at the close of the meeting, however, the ministers “unanimously concluded … that to attempt to enlarge its membership would not contribute directly and materially” to the strengthening and defense of the ANZUS area. The communique pointed out that ANZUS was one of a number of arrangements for the furtherance of the security of the nations of the area; specifically the communique mentioned the mutual security pacts between the United States and the Philippines and Japan, United States defense understandings with the government of China on Formosa and the relationship of Australia and New Zealand with the other Commonwealth nations. Together, the communique noted, these arrangements ‘constitute … a solemn warning to any potential aggressor and represent the growing foundation for lasting peace in the Pacific”.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-464
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Administrative Organization ◽  
Foreign Ministers

Revision of the Italian Peace Treaty; Trieste: Meetings between the United States, United Kingdom and Italy on the administration of Zone A of the Free Territory of Trieste which had begun in London on April 3, 1952 were adjourned April 11 after the three delegations had reviewed the economic, financial and administrative organization of Zone A. On April 16 the meetings were resumed and a drafting committee established. The three powers issued a communication on May 9 announcing new arrangements for the administration of Zone A designed “to give greater practical recognition to the predominantly Italian character of the zone” without prejudicing the ultimate decision on the Free Territory as a whole. The three governments agreed to the appointment by Italy of an Italian political adviser to the Zone Commander with a status similar to that of the political advisers appointed by the United States and United Kingdom.

1. Communiqué Issued by the Council of Foreign Ministers, June 20, 1949

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-593
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Sixth Session ◽  
The Right ◽  
Foreign Ministers

The sixth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers attended by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of France, M. Robert Schuman; of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr. A. Y. Vishinsky; of the United Kingdom, the Right Honorable Ernest Bevin, and the United States of America, Mr. Dean Acheson, took place in Paris from May 23 to June 20,1949.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 561-564
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Recent Meeting ◽  
German Question ◽  
Sixth Session ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
Peace Treaties

The sixth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers met in Paris from May 23 to June 20, 1949, to discuss the German question and the Austrian treaty. The fifth session, held in London in November–December 1947, had closed without agreement as to the drafting of peace treaties for Germany and Austria. At the recent meeting France was represented by Robert Schuman, the USSR by A. Y. Vishinsky, the United Kingdom by Ernest Bevin and the United States by Dean Acheson. A preliminary requirement for the opening of this meeting was the lifting of the Berlin blockade and counterblockade measures by members of the Council. Informal discussions in New York between Soviet and United States representatives (Jacob Malik and Philip Jessup) resulted on May 12 in preliminary agreement on this problem, which had stood for ten months as an obstacle in the way of any consideration by the members of the Council of the German question as a whole.

Baghdad Pact

1958 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 548-549 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Full Member ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Press ◽  
Joint Resolution

The Council of the Baghdad Pact, meeting on the ministerial level, convened in London on July 28, 1958. It was reported that during its two-day meeting, Secretary of State Dulles committed the United States to partnership in the pact with the United Kingdom, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan. The United States' acceptance of obligations expressed in Article 1 of the pact was accompanied by an oral promise to increase military assistance to the three Asian members. According to the press, these two steps were considered “just as good” as signing a treaty. There were two considerations, according to one source, in the procedure adopted by the United States of agreeing to obligations to members of the pact instead of becoming a full member: 1) special military and economic agreements to be made could be made immediately under the joint resolution on the Middle East passed by both Houses of Congress in March 1957; if the United States had joined the pact as a full member, a new treaty would have been involved requiring the Senate's ratification; 2) the United States was not committed to make such special agreements with Iraq, since the latter did not sign the declaration issued by the Council following its meetings on July 28.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document