and Finland, with the exception of the economic clauses
which have not yet been considered, may be regarded as in
the main completed. The governments charged with prepar-
ing these treaties have agreed on all the basic questions—
territorial, military restrictions, reparations and others. This
was facilitated by the fact that, on the Soviet Government's
suggestion, the basis taken for the said peace treaties was the
armistice terms, in which only Ihe chief obligations of the
satellite stales had been included, fully safeguarding the legi-
timate interests of the Allies, wilhout, however, leading to.
outside interference in the internal affairs of these states. The
questions on which agreement has not been reached in ire-
gard to the peace treaties with Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary
and Finland chiefly relate to the economic section of the
treaties, which thus far has not been considered by the Coun-
cil of Ministers, but was discussed in special commissions,
in which differences came to light. Incidentally, the question
of Danubian commerce and navigation, which involves1 vital
interests of the Danube countries, has already been discussed
by the Council of Foreign Ministers more than once. The
Soviet delegation maintains that ihis question cannot be con-
sidered and resolved without the participation of the Danube
stales, presuming that there is a desire to develop friendly
relations with these countries. The question of the navigation
regime on the Danube is primarily the affair of the Danube
states themselves, and it cannot be settled in peace treaties
with individual Danube states. It cannot be deemed proper
that certain non-Danube .states should arrogate tihe right to
dictate their will to the Danube states and prescribe sucih a
regime on the Danube as would not reckon with the in-
terests of the Danube states, particularly of the Danube
Allied states (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia).
As regards the peace treaty with Italy, the situation is
considerably more complicated. Here differences itoave been
39