Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: Political and Economic Matters, Volume II

740.00119 Council/9–1145

United States Delegation Minutes of the Thirty-Third Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, London, October 2, 1945, 3:10 p.m.⁷⁴

London, October 2, 1945, 3:10 p.m.

Mr. Wang in the Chair

Wang: The meeting opens. We have the Soviet proposals and those of the American delegation, and my colleagues probably have these before them.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to what I said this morning.

Bidault: I only find, Mr. Chairman, that I understand there are three proposals, and I have nothing to add to what I stated this morning.

Molotov: I have not yet received the Russian translation of the United States’ suggestion.⁷⁵ Neither have I received any text of the British proposal.

Bevin: I said before lunch that I made my suggestion as a preliminary suggestion, and as it doesn’t appear to have been accepted, I wouldn’t circulate it; so I didn’t circulate it.

Wang: The American proposal is not new. On Sunday night—(inaudible)—on my motion that it come to agree to postpone another day so as to see whether we can find a way out of this deadlock. Suggestions have been made now by all sides. There is still no agreement. If my judgment is not wrong—in spite of the fact that arguments have been made on all sides there is little possibility of agreement between us. It is certainly to my regret, and I am sure to the regret of us all. Now, I don’t know whether it will be useful to continue meeting and to talk. I am doubtful whether it is useful to further continue these meetings, but my observations might be all wrong. Therefore, I am permitting myself to ask all my friends here—Mr. Molotov, Mr. Bevin, Mr. Bidault and Mr. Byrnes—whether you consider it useful to continue these meetings, or had we better close this meeting?

Molotov: The Soviet delegation considers it would be useful to continue the meeting and requests in particular that you should get acquainted with the proposal of the Soviet delegation and discuss it. The American proposal is being translated into Russian and as soon as the translation is ready the Soviet delegation will be able to express their views on the American proposal as well.

Wang: Any other suggestions?

Bevin: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I can continue these meetings as long as the other delegates wish to continue.

Bidault: Mr. Chairman, though the French delegation is rightfully desirous to deal with the problems which arise in our country, the French delegation is determined to remain in contact with the other delegations, as long as the latter are willing to remain. The problem now is the problem of the chances of getting any results. So far as I am concerned, for a long time we have been discussing the problem of protocol which we never discussed at home in our respective capitals, and only discussed them here together. Now I think that the situation has been clearer, and I do hope that we shall be able to conclude today.

I have just received the French text of the American proposal. I have no objection to taking some time to examine it and take a definite position. The French delegation hopes that there will be an agreement, and it will be sorry if such an agreement were not possible; but the French delegation must also state that their former declarations are final.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I have the copy of the proposal circulated by the Soviet delegation,⁷⁶ which is the same proposal that has been discussed for the last several days. I have on numerous occasions trespassed on the time of the Council to express my views on that proposal, and stated why I could not agree to it. There is no reason for me to add any additional statements at this time. This morning I did oiler a new proposal, which I discussed at some length. It has been circulated, and I hope you have read it, and would be happy to discuss that proposal. Having discussed it for more than an hour ago [sic], I really should not add anything to my statement, so I will be delighted to answer any questions that may be asked.

Molotov: Mr. Chairman, I want to correct a mistake that has slipped into the English text of the Soviet proposal circulated today. The whole document coincides with the Russian text, with the exception of a few words which are not contained in the Russian text. The heading of the English version of the Soviet proposals contains the words “preparation of peace treaties”. These words are not contained in the original Russian version, and probably the mistake has slipped in during the printing; and I therefore ask that these words be deleted.

I must add that I have now received the text of the American proposal, in Russian. Before we pass on to the American proposal, I must say a few words regarding the Russian. The words that had been added by mistake to the heading of the Soviet proposal conflict with the very sense of the Soviet proposal, which is that the five Ministers should not consider these treaties, which is the view of the Soviet delegation which bases itself on the Berlin decision.

As to the American proposal, I must state that the Soviet delegation finds that this proposal is in contradiction with the Berlin decision. Under the Berlin decision the peace treaties would be prepared by the Governments who were signatories to the terms, and inasmuch as the American proposal does not reckon with the Berlin decision the Soviet delegation considers it to be unacceptable.

Wang: I was glad of the statement that my observation was all wrong, and that it will be considered by my colleagues as useful to continue the discussion.

Molotov: I have a suggestion. I suggest that we hear the protocol commission on the question which we are deciding by all five Ministers. The protocol has been prepared. We may well hear them, and decide.

Bevin: Mr. Chairman, I thought we went through that last night; and the protocol committee called our attention to the paragraph that was to be deleted, and the decision [discussion?] was as to whether the paragraph should be delivered [deleted?]. That is the same protocol as everybody agreed to last Saturday.⁷⁷

Molotov: My proposal is that we leave in these protocols and state only the agreed decisions, just as it was done at the Berlin and Crimea conferences. I don’t remember a single decision adopted at any of the conferences which was not agreed to by all the members of the conference. It may be some one will call one of these—such decisions—to my mind.

Bidault: Mr. Chairman, as I have already stated, I have accepted and I do accept that there should be different protocols for different cases. I have already also stated that I could not discuss any one plan of protocol unless I had my hands on all the plans. Therefore, I repeat my proposal that it should be considered by the protocol committee, yourself, and all the five delegation members. I must apologize for always saying the same thing, but I say the same thing because it is always the same thing.

Molotov: I must say that the French delegation did not participate in the settlements of other questions. The French delegation were only present, but they did not participate in the settlements.

Bidault: For my part I am not going back to what I have already stated on the 11th of September, namely that we accepted to discuss and we accepted not to sign. If this is what Mr. Molotov means, I entirely agree with him.

Molotov: But under the decision of September 11th decisions on the treaties of peace are to be accepted by certain representatives and not by all.

Bidault: I do not think that in what Mr. Molotov has just said, except perhaps a few amendments in wording, there is anything in contradiction with what I have already accepted.

Wang: What are we going to do?

(pause here)

Molotov: It seems Mr. Byrnes will be in the chair at the next meeting.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, what has that got to do with it?

Wang: I am ready to turn over this awkward job to anyone. (laughter)

Molotov: The Soviet delegation are ready to assist in the settlement of the question both of the President, the Chairman, Mr. Wang, as well as at the next meeting.

Wang: What is the general feeling? Shall we have a short recess and see whether we might find some other way to alleviate things, and if we cannot do it, then I shall suggest to my colleagues that we adjourn.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I think we should all agree that we are not making any progress here.

Mr. Chairman, I ask if the various members thought there was any use of continuing the meetings, and the Chairman asks if there is any work that is here that we should do it, and if there isn’t any work to do, we should find out right now. I have no objection to the motion the Chairman makes to take a thirty minute recess. It is just as comfortable in our rooms as it is here. That will be 4:30?

Bidault: We will come back, anyway. (laughter)

(Recessed at 4:00 p.m.)

(At 5:05 p.m.—Mr. Wang still Chairman)

Molotov: The Soviet delegation apologizes for having delayed the meeting. The Soviet delegation have been seeking some form of a conciliatory and friendly way out for the Council of Ministers, and as a result of this the Soviet delegation have formulated the following: The Soviet delegation as well as the other delegations are anxious to see the results achieved and the course of our work crowned respecting relative decisions.

Now I shall read out the draft of the resolution of the Council of Ministers proposed by the Soviet delegation: Our proposal consists of two paragraphs containing certain sub-paragraphs [in?] paragraph one. Now I shall read the proposal.⁷⁸

The Soviet delegation propose that on October 2 the protocols of all the decisions adopted at the Council of Foreign Ministers should be signed, and namely

• Sub-paragraph A: The Ministers of the U.S.A., Great Britain, the U.S.S.R., France and China will sign the protocol embodying the decisions of the Council of Ministers adopted by the five Ministers.
• B: The Ministers of the U.S.A., Great Britain, the U.S.S.R. and France will sign the protocol embodying the decisions of the Council regarding the peace treaty with Italy.
• C: The Ministers of the U.S.A., Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. will sign the protocol embodying the decision of the Council of Ministers regarding the peace treaty with Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary.
• D: The Ministers of Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. will sign the protocol embodying the decisions of the Ministers regarding the peace treaty with Finland.

Second: The questions outstanding on October 2 in the Council of Ministers will be referred to the Council of Ministers, to be considered on October 3.

The Soviet delegation asks for this new conciliatory proposal all there is to be studied, and for their part they will study attentively any proposals that they may receive from other delegations.

I have finished.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? The first proposal—the first item in the proposal suggested by Mr. Molotov that we, the Ministers of the U.S., Great Britain and the U.S.S.R., France and China will sign the protocol embodying the decisions of the Council of Ministers adopted by the five Ministers—as I understand it, that is the same proposal we have had for three days. The protocol is here before the Council. The four members will agree to sign it without provision as to the action on September 11 extending the invitation. Are the Soviet representatives ready to sign that proposal? If so, I think we can all agree to sign it right now. If not, then we have stated for some days that we will be unable to agree to sign the protocol, if we eliminate that proposal on the protocol.

Molotov: I want to reply to Mr. Byrnes. Such a proposal as the one the Soviet delegation is submitting now has not been so far made by anyone. The proposal consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph refers to the questions which have been agreed upon by the Ministers, and the second paragraph refers to the questions which have not been agreed upon. And as regards the first paragraph, the protocols should be signed on the questions agreed upon by the respective Ministers. As regards the questions referred to in paragraph two which remain in disagreement, we suggest that we continue to work on these questions, with the view to finding a compromise and a friendly agreement. That is the proposition.

I want to say further that we have before us a number of outstanding questions. The questions outstanding are first the question to which Mr. Byrnes has just referred; then the question of the convocation of the conference which also has been mentioned by Mr. Byrnes. And I think that we may continue to study these outstanding questions more closely, more fully, with a view to finding a compromise. We have been sitting for three weeks and have discussed many questions. We may spend another day. We may agree that we shall not sit after October 3. The job which has not yet been agreed upon among us should be accomplished by us tomorrow, and to the accomplishment of this job we should devote all our attention.

At the same time, it seems to me that not only the Soviet position but also other delegations are interested in relaxing the tension which has arisen, and in order to relax this tension, we might make ready those people who are looking to the Council of Foreign Ministers for an accomplished decision, by signing a number of agreed decisions today.

To sum up, the Soviet delegation proposes that we sign today the decisions which have been agreed upon among us, and that we tomorrow continue to work on the questions which still remain in disagreement. The Soviet delegation are ready to make all the efforts, in order to arrive at a friendly solution of the questions which still remain in disagreement, and the Soviet delegation does indeed hope that we will be able to achieve still better results, if we spend another day tomorrow in working on these outstanding questions. Finished.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, if I understand my friend, he is not prepared to discuss today the questions that are in dispute? There are two questions that he lists as being in dispute. We have discussed them for three, four, or five days now. I just wonder if there is any reason for hoping that there will be any change in view tomorrow? In discussing the conference proposals, my friend has said each day that he thought it was good in principle but he was not in position to agree to it until he had personally consulted his Government, and he said so this morning. Now, if he will tell us that he has discussed it with his Government and he is in position now to discuss it, I would like to have that information. I have discussed it with him privately, and at this table on numerous occasions, and would be glad to discuss it again, if he will tell me that the situation has changed and he is in position to agree to it; but, if after I explain it and discuss it with him again for some hours and at the conclusion he tells me that in principle it is good but that he is not in position to act, it would serve no useful purpose.

The other question which my friend said he would discuss tomorrow is the question with reference to the September 11 agreement extending the invitation. As I understand the proposition, he asks just what has been asked for many days, that members sign the protocol in the form he suggests and then leave for discussion tomorrow the question as to whether or not there will be included in the protocol the agreement of September 11. After the protocols have been signed, then if there is no agreement tomorrow on the September 11, the Council could adjourn as he suggests and there would be nothing in the protocol about the September 11 agreement.

The same proposal was made some days ago and some members of the Council, or at least one member of the Council, stated he could not sign the first protocol leaving out the agreement which was entered into on September 11, unless he could, at the same time, see all the other protocols and make sure that it was going to be included in one of the other protocols. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that there is anything new in the proposal and I see little hope for a compromise.

Molotov: The Soviet delegation cannot impose upon other delegations its proposals. It is a matter for them to agree or to disagree with it—with this new proposal of the Soviet delegation. But for their part, the Soviet delegation have made another attempt in the direction of which seems to them most desirable for all our five States.

It is natural that I am not able to tell Mr. Byrnes in advance that I shall agree with him in every respect. Mr. Byrnes is anxious to know in advance whether I shall agree with him on all the questions regarding discussing them, and I find it difficult for me to reply as regards the question which we have under discussion; but the Soviet delegation expresses their good will to continue to work with a view to finding a compromise. The purpose of our proposal is to move forward and to create a friendly atmosphere for our work. If we today would create a more friendly atmosphere for our work, this will be a definite gain for our common cause, and this will make happy every one of us as well as many people far outside—in distant places outside this room, and this will give satisfaction to them, the fact that we have created a friendly atmosphere for our work.

If we sign today the four protocols, then it will make a favorable impression not only upon us but also upon all those who in our countries are looking to the Council of Ministers for decisions. If today we accomplish the first part of our work and create a more friendly and favorable atmosphere for our further work, we can have hope that our work will be more successful on other questions which remain in dispute.

In any case, the Soviet delegation hopes that if we sign the protocol today, this will create more favorable conditions for all of us when we come to decide other questions tomorrow, and it seems to me that not only the Soviet delegation but all my colleagues are interested in this. I have finished.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, my good friend says that he finds it difficult to tell me what—whether or not he could agree about the question which has not yet been discussed. The question that he said that we have discussed tomorrow about which—convoking a conference—was submitted to my friend last week, and was discussed with him many times—and many times since. It was a document which was circulated in writing,⁷⁹ and which we have discussed time and again here at the table, and it was agreed to by every member of the Council except the representatives of the Soviet Union. That is why I don’t think my friend is serious in his proposal, because only this morning he said at this table, in the hearing of everyone, that he thought he could agree with it in principle but he could not say anything about it because he first had to personally consult his Government about it. That was only two or three hours ago.

Now, if my friend is serious, I must believe that he has consulted his Government, and if he has consulted his Government and his Government has authorized him to act in the matter, then I suggest we discuss it right now; because if it could be decided, we could decide many other questions that have given us trouble.

Won’t my friend tell me whether his Government has authorized him to act on it?

Molotov: I can assure Mr. Byrnes that I receive daily messages from Moscow.

Byrnes: Well, Mr. Chairman, then may I ask my friend, who told me last week that he couldn’t act on it solely because he hadn’t taken it up with his Government, has he given the message to his Government and can he now tell us that he has authority to act on it? My friend has said that he agrees in principle, and if he now has authority to act, we can take it up and see if we can’t agree on the details; and if we agree on the details, all the other questions can be agreed to, and it will do more to promote harmony here and give hope to the world than anything else he can do today.

Molotov: I have given the answer to the question of Mr. Byrnes, and I must say that I feel embarrassed if I take up more of the attention of my colleagues by replying and explaining.

Bevin: If we discussed outstanding questions tomorrow, some of them arise on peace treaties. Shall we discuss it on the basis of the September 11 resolution, or in what way?

Molotov: I think that the questions which relate to today should be settled today, and the questions which relate to tomorrow should be settled tomorrow. “Sufficient unto the day is evil thereof.” (laughter)

Bevin: I only wanted to know whether, about the September 11 resolution, it involved the withdrawal of the invitation to China? I think one is entitled to know what we are doing. I am not expressing an opinion, but I would like to know what it involves.

Molotov: Perhaps there are any amendments to discuss?

Bevin: Well, speaking for myself, I should be reluctant to sign anything until I saw the agenda being gone through and completed. It is very difficult. I have been looking through the different items and the number in the general so-called part of this controversy. If there are only recorded decisions, why we haven’t done very much; because in nearly each case, like the Danube, waterways, and other things, they have been discussed but there was no decision. Well, there are a number of questions that we passed on and never came back to. I am most anxious for harmony and most anxious for these things to be cleared up. It is a very serious position we have arrived at, but we have responsibilities and either—(inaudible)—the protocol now and sign it together without withdrawal of the invitation at the last minute exactly what we are doing.

Bidault: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Molotov’s views as regards the desirability and necessity of coming to an agreement. No appeal to the friendship of peoples and the cooperation of great powers will meet with any disappointment on the part of my country. Like any other delegation around this table, the French delegation realizes the necessity of not disappointing the world, which has placed so great hopes in our meeting. But since we are talking both of cooperation between the peoples and of the protocol, I must repeat that although I have accepted that there should be differences in the number of signatures, all protocols should be simultaneously submitted to examination of all the members of the Council. The French delegation is not in a position to agree beforehand what is being asked without having a formal assurance that there will be given access to what it says the French delegation should obtain, in accordance with what was agreed in common not so long ago. That’s all.

Wang: Well, anyhow, I am a little more hopeful than an hour ago. I set today as the closing day of this session. An hour ago I was about to say to all my friends here that there was little prospect of agreement. Just now Molotov assured all of us of the good will to bring about harmony. Anyhow, I have no—I cannot ask you to prolong the session since for my part I have not been able to make any constructive contribution. Therefore, I myself will not make any request for extension of the session, but Mr. Molotov just made it. He requested that the session should be prolonged for another day. He makes tomorrow the closing day of the session. I should like an opinion from you all on this request. If all my friends agree, we shall set tomorrow as the closing day and we prolong it, I shall offer my friend Mr. Molotov no resistance, now should I ask Mr. Molotov to give with a view on the proposal of Mr. Bevin. (inaudible comments continue) I repeat, I have no more a right to keep you longer than another day, and I do not on my part ask you to extend the session. It is the hope that after Mr. Molotov’s talk I should—(inaudible).

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I know that my good friend had the best intentions in the world, and on Sunday night⁸⁰ he asked that the Council remain in session up till Tuesday, in the hope that we could arrive at an agreement. The members of the Council have remained in session for long hours. The matters in dispute have been discussed fully and we have not made the slightest progress towards a decision. So far as the question which Mr. Molotov asked be discussed tomorrow, the paper that I submitted as to the calling of the conference, in view of his statement that he cannot tell me that he has authority to act, I think all members will realize that after discussing it for a week and being told by him that he did not have the authority to act, it would be useless for me to further discuss it with him when I know that he will have to tell me at the conclusion of the discussion that he cannot act. We must always have respect for the position of our friends, and when one of us states that he cannot act in a matter until he talks with his Government, then it is useless to insist upon his acting and certainly is a waste of time to further discuss the matter.

We hold a position of great responsibility and we cannot justify ourselves in the eyes of the people nor can we have respect for ourselves if we just go back to discussing the matter when other gentlemen are not in a position to make a decision. The same situation has been—holds with reference to the other question that Mr. Molotov suggested could be discussed tomorrow. That situation was disclosed in a response to the question of Mr. Bevin, Mr. Molotov stated that he could not say what would be done with reference to the discussion of the peace treaties insofar as the representatives of France and China remaining in the Council. Therefore, what purpose would be served by saying that we will discuss matters tomorrow when we know in advance—every man at this table knows—there will be no agreement? If any good purpose can be served, why should we not continue right now? It is only 6:30. At the suggestion of the Chairman of the delegation from China, we agreed to continue the session until today. We have made every possible effort, and we may as well realize the situation and face it like men.

I do not think any good will come from a continuation of the discussion of the character that we have had for the last few days. However, if any other member believes it will, then I think we should continue in session. I am willing to stay and let us go ahead and discuss today the questions that we would be supposed to discuss tomorrow. It is far better to discuss questions and to continue to discuss this evening. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you ask the Council to take up the question that is to be discussed and let us see if we can agree now.

Mr. Chairman, in order to bring the matter to a head, I suggest that we now proceed to a discussion of the paper that I submitted, asking the Council to convoke a conference of the nations before the peace treaties are finally signed.

Molotov: The question to which Mr. Byrnes is referring is not on our agenda. We have not that question on the agenda for our meeting this afternoon.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, can you tell me what is on the agenda for this afternoon? (laughter)

Wang: I am not in position to tell what is not on the agenda, or what is on.

Molotov: So far as the Soviet delegation are concerned, they are not ready to discuss this question today.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, there was nothing on the agenda that I know of. My good friend, Mr. Molotov, presented a proposal of the Soviet delegation that was not on any agenda. And, Mr. Chairman, may I say that this paper has been before the Council for some time. It has been so long that I have forgotten the date when it was on. It just means that before the Council there was no agenda, there is no question except the questions that have been discussed day after day and have been discussed this afternoon. That is the question as to what you are going to put in the protocol, and if it is desired to discuss that further, I think we should proceed to discuss it unless anybody has anything to say that has not already been said.

Bevin: Will it meet the Conference’s approval if we go on and put this on the agenda for the first thing tomorrow?

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, if the Council is to be closed tomorrow, as Mr. Molotov has suggested, we have got to midnight, so we have got till one o’clock tomorrow. If there is anything sacred about continuing until tomorrow, let us meet at nine o’clock and adjourn at one o’clock, and then it will be tomorrow. (laughter)

Molotov: I have already stated that we have submitted a protocol concerning the agreed decisions. Is the exchange of views to be understood to mean that my colleagues refuse to sign the agreed decisions?

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, it is agreed that my colleagues will sign the decision agreed to by four, but not the decision agreed to only by one. The Council, as I get the statements, agree to sign the protocol on the agreed decisions as agreed to by four, but not as agreed to by one member. If the decision of September 11 is placed in the protocol as I understand it, four members of the Council will sign it. One would not. I make that statement only from the expression of views at the table. I have no authority to talk for anybody but myself. I do not contemplate force. I just said that shows the disagreement. The protocol committee reported the protocols with the September 11 decision in it. As reported, I am willing to sign it. As I have said time and again, everybody knows it; and then agree to put in the protocol committee statement that my friend Mr. Molotov wants as to his views with regard to the decision of September 11, so that the record will show just what occurred. I put it in writing and distributed the statement in regard to number two of the Soviet proposal circulated this afternoon, that the general protocol should state the fact regarding the September 11 decision, also the position with reference thereto of the Soviet Union’s position taken September 22. That latter statement can be in any form which the Soviet Union desires.

Molotov: Mr. Chairman, will it be correct for me to draw the conclusion that the proposal submitted by the Soviet delegation today is not accepted?

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there is any doubt about it. I understood Mr. Molotov to say that the proposal I presented was not acceptable to him, and I said his proposal was not acceptable to me. That’s right. There is no misunderstanding.

Molotov: That means that my understanding is right, that the proposal which the Soviet delegation made to the meeting this afternoon is not accepted by my colleagues? Or else, will it be subject to discussion, or how should it be dealt with?

The purpose of the proposal made by the Soviet delegation is to create more favorable conditions and a more friendly atmosphere for the solution of the questions which have not yet been agreed upon. And to achieve this, the Soviet delegation propose that first of all the agreed decisions should be signed, the decisions—that is to say, the decisions about which everybody is satisfied. Everyone will understand that this will make our further work easier, and this will make many people in the world glad. The Soviet delegation expressed also the hope that they would facilitate the solution of the outstanding questions which it would be well to settle, but if this proposal meets with objection, the Soviet delegation are compelled to take note of this fact. The Soviet delegation is not going to impose upon anyone its opinion on proposals.

I still think my suggestion is a good one, that in spite of disagreement, that Mr. Byrnes’ proposal be on the agenda first thing in the morning and that we unanimously agree to wind up the session tomorrow.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I only say this. I do not believe that it is going to do the Governments any good to continue as we are now going. If there is to be further discussion of that proposal, I ask that we set a meeting for any time this evening—it is now only seven o’clock—and place my proposal on the agenda as point one, and even though I know the results, I will be happy to discuss it again. I much prefer that we set the time for this evening at nine o’clock and come back and spend the evening, and I will be glad to discuss it.

I do not mean to be captious, but we are grown men and we know what we are going to do about that proposal after days and days of discussing it; and I will be glad to meet at any time at this session tonight; but I do not want just to spend the evening and the night and wait for the morning, knowing well what is going to happen in the morning.

Bevin: Let us meet tonight at nine o’clock.

Byrnes: Nine o’clock. Then we will be able to close on the third. I agree that it be the first matter on the agenda. That is 84,⁸¹ which was offered as an amendment to 83,⁸¹ which was proposed by the Soviet delegation.

Molotov: The Soviet delegation feel that this proposal of Mr. Byrnes’ affects only those States which are signatories to the armistice terms, and it is for them to discuss.

Byrnes: Do I understand, then, that the position of my friend is that in the discussion of that proposal the Governments not signatories to the armistice terms of any country could not participate? Is that it?

Molotov: The Soviet delegation are not in position to violate the Berlin decision.

Byrnes: Well, then, your position is that we discuss that matter that—how many of us could be present?

Molotov: Let us read the Berlin decision. It will be seen from it.

Byrnes: The Berlin agreement says that the Council may convoke it, and I wanted to know how you construe the Berlin agreement as to the Council.

Molotov: Mr. Byrnes has read only paragraph four, and he has omitted paragraph three. I would like him to read both paragraphs together, and then the reply to his question will be obvious.

Byrnes: The language of the Berlin agreement says in all the cases the Council—the Council—may convoke a formal conference of States deeply interested in seeking a solution of the particular problem. Now look to one. The only way we are here is because a Council was established, and when the Council was established, if you read the language of the Berlin agreement it says there shall be established a Council composed of the Foreign Ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R., China, and France. That is the Berlin agreement. Can’t violate it.

Mr. Chairman, what my friend has said though is interesting to me, because he says that while I wanted to discuss my proposal tomorrow, under his interpretation only those could be present tomorrow who are signatories to terms of surrender, in some cases; and therefore that tomorrow he wishes me to discuss this matter about which he has no instructions from the Government in a meeting at which members of the Council could not be present.

Mr. Chairman, I think that would be very unfortunate. I think that if the purpose is to have a meeting tomorrow and then one delegation makes the point that some members of this Council can’t sit in the Council, then on the last day and the last meeting some members shall be excluded from this Council, and it shall close not as a Council but only part of a Council, it will not contribute to the peaceful procedures of this Council in the future.

In good humor I submit to my friend that it would be far better if we wound up this Conference if not tonight—now—immediately—rather than to say to the world on the last day that two members were to be excluded from the consideration of a question. We had better part in good humor, on good terms, with mutual respect for each other, hoping that in days to come we may have a clearer understanding of the possibilities of making this Council work.

Molotov: I am also in favor of parting in good humor. I have only one reservation to make, that is that I cannot agree with the interpretation placed by Mr. Byrnes on the Berlin decision. I am sure I am prepared to part in good humor, and I should like to see all of us part in good humor.

Wang: There is no agreement for a further meeting tonight?

Byrnes: No.

Wang: And then there is no agreement for holding a meeting tomorrow, that is right? I am constrained to say that the session of this Council is adjourned.

I am very delighted to say further that I happen to be the man who has prolonged the session until today, but as I had no request for another meeting, so I must so declare. No objection? My earnest hope is that the future meeting of the Council will be arranged by the Governments concerned.

Byrnes: If the meeting is now adjourned, I think we should all join in thanking Mr. Bevin. As our host he has been exceedingly kind to us, and I know that if he will invite us to his room on the other side of the steps I promise to be there, and I hope that my other colleagues will be there. Before we part, we can partake of his hospitality once more.

Molotov: I associate myself with Mr. Byrnes.

Bidault: I also associate myself with my friend Mr. Bevin.

(Adjournment at 7:25 p.m.)

74. There is no Agreed Record of Decisions for this meeting. According to the British record of the meeting, not printed, the participants were as follows: United Kingdom—Bevin, Campbell, Clark Kerr, and Duff Cooper; United States–Byrnes, Dunn, Cohen, Dulles, and Bohlen: Soviet Union—Molotov, Gusev, Novikov, Golunski, and Pavlov; France—Bidault, Couve de Murvilie, Fouques Duparc, and Alphand; China—Wang Shih-Chieh, Wellington Koo, Victor Hoo, Hollington Tong, and Yang Yun Chu.
75. Memorandum by the United States delegation, C.F.M.(45) 92, October 2, p. 556.
76. Resolution proposed by the Soviet delegation, C.F.M.(45) 88, October 2, infra.
77. At the 27th and 28th meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers on September 29, the Council discussed the memorandum by the Joint Secretariat, C.F.M.(45) 66, September 29, “Decisions of First Plenary Conference”, p. 456.
78. For text of the Soviet proposal as circulated in the Council, see C.F.M.(45) 91, October 2, p. 555.
79. The proposal to which the Secretary referred was circulated in the Council as C.F.M.(45) 84, September 30, p. 475. It was an amendment to a Soviet proposal which was circulated in the Council as C.F.M.(45) 83, September 30, p. 474.
80. September 30.
81. See footnote 79, p. 548.
81. See footnote 79, p. 548.