Council of Foreign Ministers Files: Lot M–88: CFM London Minutes
Record of the Twelfth Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, Lancaster Home, London, September 19, 1943, 4 p.m.
Present
| U.K. | U.S.A | U.S.S.R |
| Mr. Bevin | Mr. Byrnes | M. Molotov |
| Sir R. I. Campbell | Mr. J. Dunn | M. F. T. Gousev |
| Sir A. Clark Kerr | Mr. B. V. Cohen | M. K. V. Novikov |
| Mr. A. Duff Cooper | Mr. A. Harriman | M. S. A. Golunski |
| Sir N. Charles | Mr. C. E. Bohlen | M. V. N. Pavlov |
| France | China |
| M. Bidault | Dr. Wang Shih Chieh |
| M. Couve de Murville | Dr. Wellington Koo |
| General Catroux | Dr. Victor Hoo |
| M. Alphand | Dr. Hollington Tong |
| Mr. Yang Yun Chu |
1. Italian Peace Treaty: Yugoslav-Italian Frontier and Trieste
(Previous Reference C.F.M.(P) (45) 11th Meeting)
Mr. Byrnes suggested that the Council might now refer this problem for detailed study by the Deputies, who could submit their recommendations to the Council at their next Conference. He handed in draft terms of reference for this purpose.92
M. Molotov suggested that it might be made clear in the terms of reference to the Deputies that the question of the sovereignty of the city of Trieste was not prejudged and could be discussed further by the Council when they received the Deputies’ report. Mr. Bevin said that sovereignty over Trieste would be determined by the line as a whole. M. Molotov reiterated his belief that the question of sovereignty should not be decided now. Mr. Byrnes said that nothing was pre-judged by the terms of reference which he had proposed: the whole of the recommendations to be made by the Deputies would be open to discussion by the Council at their next Conference: and in these circumstances he thought it would be preferable not to single out for special mention the question of sovereignty over the city of [Page 255] Trieste. M. Molotov said that, in the light of the explanations given, he would not press his proposal for a specific amendment of the terms of reference on this point.
After further discussion, in which other amendments of the draft proposed by
Mr. Byrnes were suggested and approved, the Council agreed that the Deputies
should consider and report on the problem of the Yugoslav-Italian Frontier
and Trieste with the following terms of reference:—
2. Italian Peace Treaty: Economic and Financial Matters
Mr. Byrnes recalled that the draft prepared by the British Delegation (C.F.M.(45) 3)93 contained a number of clauses dealing with economic and financial relations, the settlement of which would be a matter of great complexity, in view of the large number of Governments involved. The United States Delegation did not dissent from the substance of the majority of these clauses, but thought that agreement to the main Treaty would be secured more rapidly if these questions were dealt with in separate commercial treaties between Italy and the countries concerned.
Mr. Bevin said that he could accept this proposal in general, with the reservation that the Deputies should be empowered to consider suggestions for covering some of these questions in the Peace Treaty.
M. Bidault said that, while the British draft included many matters appropriate for separate bilateral agreements, there were others (e.g. those concerning customs, navigation and civil aviation) which were of general application and should be dealt with in the Peace Treaty. He therefore supported Mr. Bevin’s suggestion. The Peace Treaty must include some clauses on economic and financial questions; and it was appropriate that the Deputies should select from the British draft those questions which could not suitably be left to separate bilateral agreements.
After further discussion:—
The Council instructed the Deputies to select from the draft clauses in C.F.M.(45) 3 dealing with economic and financial matters those which ought to be retained in the Peace Treaty as being of important [Page 256] general application, and should leave the remainder to be dealt with in separate bilateral agreements between Italy and the countries concerned.
3. Italian Peace Treaty: Sovereignty of Italy
Mr. Byrnes said that the United States Delegation wished to put forward a further principle, in addition to those set out in their memorandum (C.F.M.(45) 1694), for the guidance of the Deputies in their detailed consideration of the draft Heads of the Treaty (C.F.M.(45) 3). This was as follows:—
“The Treaty should provide for the restoration of Italian sovereignty, and the nations party to the treaty should have no rights or controls within Italy except as may be specifically provided in the treaty.”
Mr. Bevin said that, while he did not object to this proposal in principle, he thought that the Deputies should consider whether the inclusion of such a provision in the Treaty might not lead to practical difficulties. For example, it might be found necessary for certain essential lines of communication in Italy to remain under Allied control for some time after the conclusion of the Peace Treaty.
The Council agreed that the Deputies should add to the draft Treaty some provision for the restoration of Italian sovereignty, on the lines suggested by the United States Delegation.
4. Italian Peace Treaty: Questions of Special Concern to China
(Previous Reference C.F.M.(P) (45) 3rd Meeting, Minute 5)
Dr. Wang Shih-Chieh recalled that the Chinese Delegation had circulated two memoranda (C.F.M.(45) 13 and 1495) on certain points of special interest to China and had suggested that these might be considered by the Deputies.
The Council instructed the Deputies to consider the issues raised in C.F.M.(45) 13 and 14.
5. Italian Peace Treaty: Dodecanese Islands
(Previous Reference: C.F.M.(P) (45) 6th Meeting, Minute 4)
Mr. Bevin recalled that the Council had not yet reached a decision on the disposal and demilitarisation of the Dodecanese Islands. If it could be agreed in principle that the islands should be ceded to Greece, the British Delegation would be ready to agree that the question of demilitarisation should be referred to the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation. The settlement of this matter was of importance to his Government, which was still responsible for [Page 257] the administration of the islands. An agreement on this matter would also be of considerable assistance to him in his approach to other questions before the Council.
M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation required more time to study the question before they could express a view. He hoped they would be able to express their views in a day or two, so that a decision could be reached before the end of the present Conference.
After further discussion it was agreed that further consideration of this question should again be adjourned.
6. Italy: Disposal of Italian Colonies
(Previous Reference C.F.M.(P) (45) 5th Meeting, Minute 4)
At their meeting on 15th September the Council had agreed that, in considering the disposal of the Italian Colonies, the Deputies should have discretion to hear the views of any of the Governments which had been invited to express their views to the Council in writing on the terms of the peace settlement with Italy.
Mr. Bevin said that he was sorry to have to re-open this matter, but he had been reminded that Egypt was closely interested in the disposal of Italy’s African possessions and he wished to suggest that the Deputies should be empowered to hear the views of the Government of Egypt. Though she had been attacked by Italy and had made a substantial contribution to the African campaign, Egypt had not actually declared war on Italy and had not therefore been included in the list of countries invited to express their views in writing on the peace settlement.
After discussion, the Council agreed that the Deputies should have discretion to consider any views which the Egyptian Government might submit in writing on the question of the disposal of the Italian Colonies.
7. Italian Peace Treaty: Separations
(Previous Reference C.F.M.(P) (45) 7th Meeting, Minute 4)
M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation regretted that it had not been found possible to agree on a total figure of reparations from Italy, and they felt bound to record their extreme dissatisfaction with the lack of progress made on this question. As matters stood, however, they saw no alternative but to refer the question to the Deputies without guidance from the Council.
Mr. Bevin said that it must be understood that the repayment of expenditure of other countries on relief for Italy must be a first charge on exports from Italy. Otherwise, a reparations plan might be devised which would have the effect that the British taxpayer would be subsidising the reparations payments of Italy.
[Page 258]M. Molotov suggested that this matter would arise in connection with the economic and financial clauses of the Peace Treaty, which were also to be referred to the Deputies.
Mr. Byrnes said that he would agree that the question of reparations from Italy should be referred to the Deputies if it were understood, as to this and other matters, referred to the Deputies for recommendations, that the Deputies would base their joint draft on a majority view submitting individual reports in case of his agreement [of disagreement?].
M. Molotov said that this was an interesting but new suggestion and he would like a day or two to consider it.
The Council agreed to consider at a later meeting Mr. Byrnes’ proposals on procedure; and took note that, if these proposals were accepted, it could be agreed that the question of reparations from Italy should stand referred to the Deputies.
- The Secretary of State’s draft terms of reference read as follows: “(1) to report on the line which as closely as is practical will be the ethnic line, leaving the minimum under alien rule (2) to report on an international regime which will assure that the port and transit faculties of Trieste will be available for use on equal terms to Yugoslavia, Italy, and the states of Central Europe.” (United States Delegation Minutes of the 12th Meeting—740.00119 Council/9–1145)↩
- September 12, p. 135.↩
- September 14, p. 179 ↩
- Neither printed; see footnote 94, p. 160.↩