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

Council of Foreign Ministers File: Lot M–88

Record of the First Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, Lancaster House, London, September 11, 1945, 4 p.m. ⁴¹

London, September 11, 1945, 4 p.m.

C.F.M.(P)(45) 1st Meeting

Present ⁴²

U.K.	U.S.A	U.S.S.R
Mr. Bevin	Mr. Byrnes	M. Molotov
Sir R. I. Campbell	Mr. B. V. Cohen	M. F. T. Gousev
Sir A. Clark Kerr	Mr. J. Dunn	M. K. V. Novikov
Mr. A. Duff Cooper	Mr. J. F. Dulles	M. S. A. Golunski
Mr. W. D. McAfee	Mr. C. E. Bohlen	M. V. N. Pavlov

France	China
M. Bidault	Dr. Wang Shih Chieh
M. Couve de Murville	Dr. Wellington Koo
M. Massigli	Dr. Victor Hoo
M. Fouques Duparc	Dr. Hollington Tong
M. Mathieu	Mr. Yang Yun Chu

Mr. Bevin welcomed the Delegates on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. The armies of the United Nations had carried out their task; and it was now for the Foreign Ministers to complete their work by laying the foundations for a sound and lasting peace.

Mr. Byrnes, M. Molotov, M. Bidault and Dr. Wang thanked Mr. Bevin and associated themselves with his remarks.

1. Procedure of the Council

(a) Chairmanship

Mr. Byrnes suggested that, following the procedure adopted at the meetings of the Foreign Secretaries at Potsdam, the Chairmanship should rotate. He proposed that Mr. Bevin should preside at the present meeting.

This was agreed. It was further agreed that the order of Chairmanship should be Mr. Bevin, M. Molotov, Dr. Wang Shih Chieh, Mr. Byrnes, M. Bidault.

(b) Meetings

It was agreed that there should be regular meetings of the Deputies in the mornings and of the Foreign Ministers in the afternoons. The Deputies should prepare the Agenda for the Foreign Ministers and deal with any matters referred to them. Expert Committees might be appointed as required.

(c) Secretariat

Mr. Bevin said that, to avoid any initial delay, the British Government had made available staff for a Conference Secretariat, under the direction of Mr. Norman Brook, which would circulate documents and agenda papers, and secure agreed statements of conclusions and maintain constant touch with the Secretaries of all the Delegations. This Secretariat would also be ready to produce an unofficial report of the proceedings of the meetings. This report would not be binding on any Delegation, but the Secretariat would be glad to receive any comments or corrections which Delegations might wish to make.

M. Molotov suggested that a joint Secretariat might be set up immediately, and that the Secretaries of the various Delegations should meet that evening to discuss the matter and make recommendations. M. Molotov formulated his proposal as follows:—

(i) The Council of Foreign Ministers considers it necessary to set up a joint Secretariat;

(ii) The Council instructs the Secretaries of the five Delegations to consider how such a Secretariat should be established;

(iii) The Council instructs its representatives to consider whether such a Secretariat should serve only for the present Conference, or should be the basis for a permanent organisation.

(iv) The Council instructs its representatives to report to the next meeting of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Byrnes said that, as far as he was concerned, he would be satisfied with the arrangement which Mr. Bevin had proposed, but he was willing that the alternative should be discussed as proposed.

It was agreed that the following representatives should meet that evening—

U.S.S.R.	M. K. V. Novikov
U.S.A.	Mr. T.C. Achilles43
China	Dr. Victor Hoo
France	M. A. Berard44
U.K.	Mr. P. M. Crosthwaite45

with Mr. Norman Brook to consider the functions and constitution of the Secretariat and to submit recommendations for consideration on the following day.

(d) Languages of the Conference

Mr. Bevin suggested that the documents of the Council should be issued in three languages, English, Russian and French.

Dr. Wang said that he thought that for the more important documents there should also be a Chinese version.

It was agreed that all the documents of the Council should be prepared in English, Russian and French, and that the more important documents should also be translated into Chinese.

(e) Competence of Members of the Council

Mr. Bevin asked whether it was a correct interpretation of the terms of reference of the Council that, while all five members might attend all meetings and take part in all discussions, in questions concerning peace settlements the representatives of States which were not signatories to the relevant Armistices should not vote.

After some discussion—⁴⁶

It was agreed that all five members of the Council should have the right to attend all meetings and take part in all discussions, but that in matters concerning peace settlements members whose Governments had not been signatories to the relevant Terms of Surrender should not be entitled to vote.

(f) Press Arrangements

Mr. Bevin recalled that the following arrangements had been proposed—

(i) The Council’s proceedings should be secret.

(ii) The progress of the Council’s work should be published from time to time in agreed communiqués.

(iii) Each Delegation should appoint its own Press Officer.

(iv) The Council should appoint a Standing “Communiqué Committee” which might consist of the five Press Officers.

M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation would appoint Mr. Zinchenko⁴⁷ as their Press Officer. Agreed Communiqués could be issued from time to time; but he was doubtful whether it was necessary to establish a Standing Committee to deal with them. This had not been found necessary at Conferences of Heads of Governments.

Mr. Byrnes said that present conditions were different from those at earlier Conferences. He thought it might be helpful if at the close of each day’s proceedings a communiqué were issued containing only the decisions reached, and not a record of the discussions. He saw no objection to a Standing Committee acting as a link with the Press.

This might help to prevent pressure on Delegations or members of their staffs to make independent statements to the Press.

It was agreed to appoint a Press Communiqué Committee consisting of the Press Officers of the five Delegations, who would issue from time to time agreed communiqués recording the progress of the Council’s work and the decisions reached.⁴⁸

2. Agenda for the Conference

Mr. Bevin circulated the following list of subjects proposed for discussion at this series of meetings of the Council:—⁴⁹

1. Italy

(a) Draft Peace Treaty;

(b) Future of the Italian Colonies.

2. Draft Peace treaties with Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary.

3. Draft Peace Treaty with Finland.

4. Withdrawal of Allied troops from Persia.

5. International inland waterways.

6. Austria (proposed by United Kingdom).

(a) Long term supply arrangements;

(b) Possible recognition of central government.

7. Black Sea Straits (United States intention).

8. Review of decisions of the Berlin Conference regarding policy in Germany. (French proposal).

9. Review of Berlin Conference’s decisions on German fleet and merchant ships. (French proposal).

10. Political situation in Roumania (United States intention).

11. Work of the German Reparations Commission (Russian proposal).

12. Hastening of the repatriation of Soviet citizens. (Russian proposal).

He suggested that the Council should consider whether this could be accepted as a provisional Agenda. It would, of course, be understood that any member might propose further items for discussion as the meetings proceeded. In discussion of this list, the following points were raised:—

(a) M. Molotov said that it had been contemplated at the Berlin Conference, and in a subsequent telegram from Mr. Bevin, that the draft Peace Treaties for Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania should be regarded as a single item for discussion by the Council of Foreign Ministers. He suggested that items 2 and 3 on the above list should be amalgamated.

This was agreed.

(b) Mr. Byrnes recalled that the Berlin Conference had remitted only items 1 to 5 of the proposed agenda for consideration by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

The United States Government had not asked that item 7 (Black Sea Straits) should be included in the agenda. While it would be proper to raise it in connection with Item 5 (International Inland Waterways) he had not asked for it to be considered as a separate item. Nor had his Government asked for Item 10 (Political Situation in Roumania) to be included in the agenda.

It was agreed that items 7 and 10 on the above list should not be included in the Agenda for the Conference.⁵⁰

(c) M. Molotov said that Mr. Bevin’s list included the question of Austria. The Soviet Delegation had not with them the economic experts they would require for discussion of supplies for Austria. He suggested that this question should be referred to the Allied Council for Austria.

Mr. Bevin pointed out that at the Berlin Conference the three Governments had agreed that they would examine the Soviet proposals for the extension of the authority of the Austrian Provisional Government to all of Austria after the entry of the British and American forces into the city of Vienna. The British Government’s view was that these questions should be considered by the Council of Foreign Ministers, and not delegated to the Allied Council. He would, however, be willing for these matters to be examined in the first instance by the Deputies.

M. Molotov said that, if the question of supplies for Austria was to be discussed, it would be necessary for him to summon experts to London.

After further discussion Mr. Bevin suggested that M. Molotov’s difficulties might be met if the four Governments represented on the Allied Council for Austria instructed their representatives to consult together immediately on the question of long-term supply arrangements for Austria, and to submit their recommendations in time for them to be considered before the end of the present series of meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

It was agreed that the Secretaries to the United Kingdom, United States of America, Soviet and French Delegations should prepare the draft of a communication to be sent, in identical terms, by each Government to its representative on the Allied Council for Austria conveying an instruction on the lines suggested by Mr. Bevin.

(d) M. Molotov observed that the question of Japan was not included in Mr. Bevin’s suggested Agenda, although in his message of 14th August⁵¹ Mr. Bevin had indicated that it might come up for discussion.

Mr. Bevin said that the words used in his message had been—“in view of developments in the Far East it will no doubt be essential to discuss questions relating to Japan”. In fact, however, no specific proposal had been put forward by other Governments for discussion; and he was not aware that there was any particular question ready for discussion in relation to the Far East.⁵²

(e) M. Molotov drew attention to the French proposals, under Item 9 in the list, for review of the Berlin Conference decisions on the German Fleet and Merchant Navy. He said that he had no authority to review decisions reached by Heads of Governments at the Berlin Conference.

M. Bidault said that the Berlin decisions were binding only on the three Governments represented at that Conference, and the French Government did not consider itself bound by any decision to which it was not a party.

Mr. Bevin asked whether there was any objection to allowing the French, as they had not been present at Berlin, to put their case before this meeting.

Mr. Byrnes asked whether Item 8 (Review of decisions of the Berlin Conference regarding policy in Germany) was not in the same category from this point of view as Item 9, and whether Item 11 (Work of the German Reparations Commission) was not also in this category. He also made the point that Item 8 was wide enough to cover Item 9, as well as many other decisions of the Berlin Conference.⁵³

M. Molotov suggested that Item 9 should be taken off the Agenda and that Item 8 should remain.

M. Bidault said that, on the assumption that Item 8 covered all German questions (and he understood that M. Molotov and Mr. Byrnes agreed to this assumption), he would agree to the deletion of Item 9.

Mr. Byrnes said that he thought it would be useful if the Council could have some idea of the precise points covered by Item 8.

M. Bidault said that, in putting forward Item 8, the French Government had it in mind that the Conference should be free to discuss the problems of Germany, which were very important to all concerned and especially to France. It was not right that German problems should be excluded from discussion at this first meeting of the Council.

Mr. Bevin suggested that further discussion of the question whether Item 8 should be included in the Agenda should be postponed until the French Delegation had submitted a memorandum indicating more precisely what points they wished to raise on the Berlin decisions regarding policy in Germany.⁵⁴

Mr. Byrnes suggested that as regards Items 8, 11 and 12 documents should be submitted before it was decided whether the items should remain on the Agenda. The first five items on the list had been specifically referred to the Council by the Berlin Conference and he had not come to London prepared to discuss other questions. When it was proposed that a further item should be added to the Agenda, it was reasonable to ask that some information should first be provided as to the scope of the additional matter proposed.

M. Molotov said that it was not his impression that the Berlin decisions had restricted the discussions of the Foreign Ministers only to such questions as had been specifically referred to them, and he thought they were free to add other subjects at their discretion. The Soviet Delegation thought that the Conference could discuss questions not connected with the Berlin Conference, and they therefore suggested that it should deal with Items 11 and 12 and also with the question of the political situation in Greece.

Mr. Bevin read the relevant paragraph in the Berlin Protocol, namely, “Other matters may from time to time be referred to the Council by agreement between the member Governments” (Berlin Protocol IA (3) (iii)). The wording of Item 8 of the draft Agenda was, however, very wide and he again suggested that further discussion should be adjourned until the Conference had been informed of the decisions it was suggested should be reviewed.

M. Bidault pointed out that Item 8 was not a special case, and that further information might be requested on similar grounds as regards other items on the Agenda. While he did not consider that the French Delegation should be asked to give written justification for suggesting this subject for discussion, he was prepared to put in a document on Item 8, and also to propose a revised version of the heading for the Agenda (which had not been drafted by the French Delegation).

Mr. Bevin said that he was not suggesting that it was necessary for the French Government to submit a justification of their proposal that the decisions of the Potsdam Conference should be reviewed. The position was that the suggestion under item 9 (Review of Berlin Conference decisions regarding the German Fleet and Merchant Navy) was sufficiently precise to enable the Soviet Delegation to say that they could not discuss the matter; on item 8 however, the other Delegations required to know what the French Government had in mind. Until some more precise indication was given he was not in a position to say whether or not he could agree to the matter being placed on the Agenda of the Conference.

Mr. Byrnes referred again to the terms of reference of the Council. The paragraph quoted by Mr. Bevin had been carefully drafted and, as he understood it, contemplated that the Council should consider only those questions which the member Governments were agreed should be submitted to it, and not proposals which were put forward merely by a single Government. He understood, however, that the French Delegation were ready to submit a memorandum on Item 8; and he hoped that the Soviet Delegation would do the same on items 11 and 12.

M. Molotov thought that Mr. Bevin’s suggestion that the French, proposals should be made more precise was quite proper. He agreed also with Mr. Byrnes that the Agenda of the Council should be made up of questions which member Governments were agreed in submitting to it. For his part, however, he would not think it right that the Council should refuse to hear the views of the French Government on German questions. As regards the items proposed by the Soviet Delegation (Nos. 11 and 12), he was ready to submit memoranda.

M. Bidault said he would like to make the position of the French Delegation clear. He was ready to submit a memorandum on German questions which the French government desired to be considered; but he must object to any suggestion that the submission of such a memorandum was a condition which must be fulfilled before a subject could be placed on the Agenda of the Conference. In order to make this point clear, he would propose tomorrow a redraft of item 8.

After some further discussion⁵⁵ the following conclusions were reached regarding the Agenda for the present series of meetings:—

(1) Items 1–5 on the list circulated by Mr. Bevin were accepted for inclusion in the Agenda; items 2 and 3 being amalgamated into a single item.

(2) On Item 6, a report from the representatives of the four Governments responsible for the Allied Council for Austria would be obtained in time for consideration by the Council before the end of the present series of meetings;

(3) Items 7, 9 and 10 should not be included in the Agenda.

(4) On Items 8, 11 and 12, the French and Soviet Delegations respectively would submit memoranda, in the light of which the Council would give further consideration to the question whether these subjects should be discussed at the present series of meetings.

(5) It would be understood that any announcement made regarding the subjects for consideration at the present series of meetings would make it clear that further subjects might be added to the Agenda as the work of the Council proceeded.

3. Italy: Draft Peace Treaty

Mr. Bevin said that he would like to raise a point of procedure in connection with the consideration of a draft Peace Treaty for Italy. Should the interested States other than those represented at the Conference be heard before or after the draft Peace Treaty was prepared? In order to avoid the confusion which had occurred at the Peace Conference at the end of the last war, there was much to be said for hearing these States before the draft was finally prepared.

Mr. Byrnes said that the United States Delegation had prepared a Memorandum on the procedure to be followed in preparing the Italian Peace Treaty.⁵⁶ (Copies of this document were handed round). He suggested that this document should be considered by the Deputies at their meeting on the following morning. While fully appreciating the interest of many of the United Nations in the question of the Italian Peace Treaty, he felt that in considering who should be invited to put forward their views on the matter the Council should keep in mind the great importance of making quick progress. When the draft Treaty had been prepared, it would be submitted to all the interested United Nations concerned before signature.

Mr. Bevin said that the British Government would wish the Council to consider at the same time the question of consultation with the Governments of British Dominions.

M. Molotov said he had no objection to the Memorandum being referred for preliminary consideration by the Deputies on the following day, though he must make the reservation that he had not had time to examine the contents of this document. He would also like to add that, in his view, the procedure adopted for the Italian Peace Treaty with regard to consultation with other United Nations should also be followed in the case of the draft Peace Treaties for Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria and Finland. He had received proposals dealing with the political aspects of the Peace Treaty with Italy, but not with the economic or military aspects. He would like to receive the views of the British Government on these two questions also.

Mr. Byrnes said that he had not yet received the views of the British Government on any aspects of the Italian Peace Treaty.

Mr. Bevin undertook to arrange for copies of the British views on the political aspects of the Italian Peace Treaty to be sent at once to Mr. Byrnes.⁵⁷

It was agreed that the memorandum submitted by the United States Delegation (C.F.M.(45) 2) should be referred for consideration in the first instance by the Meeting of Deputies.

4. International Inland Waterways

Mr. Byrnes submitted for circulation a memorandum by the United States Delegation on International Inland Waterways (C.F.M.(45) 1)⁵⁸

5. Times of Meetings

It was agreed that the Council of Foreign Ministers should meet daily at 4.00 p.m., and that on Wednesday, 12th September, the Deputies should meet at 11.30 a.m. On subsequent days the meeting of Deputies might be held at an earlier hour.

41. Document C.F.M.(45) 12, September 13, entitled “Composition and Functions of Joint Secretariat”, p. 155, which was approved by the Council of Foreign Ministers at its Third Meeting, September 14, p. 158, set forth under item 5 the procedure for the preparation of a record of meetings of the Foreign Ministers and of their Deputies. This decision was, however, nullified by the Foreign Ministers at their Fifteenth Meeting, September 21. For the American Minutes of that meeting, see p. 288.
42. Aside from the Foreign Ministers, the delegations consisted of the following persons: For the United Kingdom—Sir Ronald I. Campbell, Deputy to Foreign Secretary Bevin and Acting Under Secretary of State in the British Foreign Office, Sir Archibald Clark Kerr, British Ambassador in the Soviet Union, Alfred Duff Cooper, British Ambassador in France; for the United States—Benjamin V. Cohen, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State, James C. Dunn, Deputy to Secretary Byrnes and Assistant Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, Consultant to the Secretary of State, and Charles E. Bohlen, Assistant to the Secretary of State; for the Soviet Union—Fedor Tarasovich Gusev, Deputy for Foreign Commissar Molotov and Soviet Ambassador in the United Kingdom, Kiril Vasilyevich Novikov, Chief of the Second Section (United Kingdom) of the Soviet Foreign Commissariat, Sergey Aleksandrovich Golunski, Member of the Collegium of the Soviet Foreign Commissariat and Chief of the Juridical Division, and Vladimir Nikolayevich Pavlov, Personal Secretary and Interpreter to Foreign Commissar Molotov; for France—Maurice Couve de Murville, Deputy to Foreign Minister Bidault and Director General in Charge of Political Affairs in the French Foreign Ministry, René Massigli, French Ambassador in the United Kingdom, Jacques Fouques-Duparc, of the French Foreign Ministry; for China—Wellington Koo, Chinese Ambassador in the United Kingdom, Victor Hoo, Chinese Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs until August 1945, Hollington K. Tong, Chinese Vice Minister for Information until August 1945, and Yang Yun-chu, Director of the East Asiatic Department of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
43. Theodore C. Achilles, Secretary to the American delegation to the Conference.
44. First Counselor of the French Embassy in the United States.
45. Ponsonby Moore Crosthwaite, First Secretary of the British Embassy in the Soviet Union.
46. The American minutes of the discussion regarding the question of the competence of the Council read as follows:

    “Bevin said that the next question was that of the competence of the Council.

    “Molotov thought the matter should be considered later.

    “Bevin thought it was necessary to raise this question at the beginning.

    “Molotov thought he could agree in principle now, but that the details should be discussed later. He also thought that countries not represented now should be asked if they wished to be present during considerations of certain questions.

    “Byrnes said that at Potsdam there was agreement that so far as representatives on the Council, all representatives interested in a question should participate, but they would not all necessarily vote. For example, in the case of Finland where the U.S. was not a party to the armistice, the United States would participate in the discussion but would not vote. So far as the U.S. Delegation was concerned, it was willing to review the decision taken at Potsdam, and was entirely willing to have all members participate and vote.

    “Molotov said he was not empowered to revise decisions taken at the Berlin Conference.

    “Byrnes said he was not making a motion, but was merely stating the position of the U.S. Delegation.

    “Bidault said that so far as the French Delegation was concerned, the decisions referred to were taken at a meeting at which France was not represented. These decisions could, of course, bind others, but they had no such effect on the French Delegation. On the question of substance, the French Delegation asked the right to participate in all questions which were discussed. The matter of voting raised legal questions, and the French Delegation, of course, did not insist on a vote in all cases.

    “Byrnes said he did not believe it would be a violation of the Potsdam Agreement for the French to participate in the discussions. His understanding was that a party could be present and participate in the discussions, but not vote unless it were directly concerned.

    “Molotov inquired if Bevin suggested that all five representatives have the right to attend discussions if they wished to do so, but that decisions could be made only by the representatives concerned. If that were so, he agreed.

    “Bevin said he wanted to know what the understanding was. Would all five attend the discussions, but if they had no interest, would not vote? If they were interested, they would vote.

    “Byrnes said that so far as the United States was concerned, this was all right if it meant that they would not only be present but could participate in the discussion.

    “Molotov said he had no objection.

    “Bidault agreed with what Mr. Byrnes had said.

    “This was agreed to.” (740.00119 Council/9–1145)

47. Konstantin Emelyanovich Zinchenko, Chief of the Press Department of the Soviet Foreign Commissariat.
48. The communiqué on the opening session of the Council of Foreign Ministers was released to the press on September 11; for text, see Department of State Bulletin, September 16, 1945, p. 392. For texts of subsequent communiqués dealing with meetings of the Council from September 12 to October 2, see ibid., October 14, 1945, pp. 564–567.
49. The American minutes of the meeting begin this discussion as follows:

    “Bevin said he had circulated the items which he had received for the agenda.

    “The other members present pointed out that they were seeing these for the first time.

    “Bevin repeated he had merely circulated the items submitted to him. The question was whether these items were in order for consideration. He pointed out that it had been decided that any member would be free to propose any item for the agenda,” (740.00119 Council/9–1145)

50. Concerning the discussion with regard to this point, the American Minutes read as follows:

    “Molotov said he had no objection to Items 7 and 10 being removed from the agenda, but he did not think that Item 10 related to the peace treaties nor that Item 7 related to the inland waterways. With reference to the Black Sea Straits he recalled that the Protocol of the Berlin Conference stated that it was agreed that as a next step this question would be the subject of direct negotiations between each of the three Governments and the Turkish Government.

    “Byrnes said he heartily agreed. All he said was that these two items were not added to the agenda at the United States’ request. He did not, however, attempt to confine the discussion of items that were placed on the agenda.

    “Bevin observed that it was agreed that these items come off.” (740.00119–Council/9–1145).

51. For text of Foreign Secretary Bevin’s message to the Secretary of State, transmitted to the Secretary in Chargé Balfour’s note of August 15, see p. 99.
52. In connection with the discussion with regard to the placing of Far Eastern questions on the agenda, the American Minutes record the following remark by the Secretary of State: “Byrnes said that the United States Delegation did not understand that Far Eastern questions would be considered. At Berlin they had thought that there would be greater progress if they concentrated on the questions already raised and the United States Delegation was not prepared to raise Far Eastern matters.” (740.00119 Council/9–1145)
53. In connection with this point in the Council’s discussions, the American Minutes record the following exchange between the Secretary of State and Foreign Commissar Molotov:

    “Byrnes said he understood Mr. Molotov to say that he had no objection to the item remaining on the agenda but he gave notice that he had no authority to review a decision taken by the head of his Government.

    “Molotov said he had no authority to discuss this question.

    “Byrnes pointed out that Item 8 proposed a review of the decision of the Berlin Conference and also that the Russian proposal of Item 11 on the work of the Reparations Commission also involved a similar matter.

    “Molotov said the Soviet Delegation did not propose to change any decision that had been taken.

    “Byrnes observed that Mr. Molotov did not then assert this item had been referred to the Council.

    “Molotov repeated he had no authority to discuss questions on which decisions had been taken at Berlin.

    “Bevin asked what this statement applied to. Did it apply to Items 8, 9, and 11?

    “Molotov said it was not clear with regard to Item 8 but Item 9 would lead to a possible repudiation of a decision taken at Berlin.

    “Byrnes said he agreed that Item 8 covered Item 9 and all other decisions of the Berlin Conference.

    “Molotov suggested that Item 9 be taken off the agenda and that they leave Item 8.” (740.00119 Council/9–1145)

54. With regard to the British proposal to postpone further discussion about Item 8 of the agenda, the American minutes record the following exchange between Foreign Secretary Bevin and Foreign Commissar Molotov:

    “Bevin said it was necessary to know on what points Mr. Molotov did have authority to revise action taken at Potsdam.

    “Molotov said he would set forth his point of view when the proper time came.

    “Bevin said he could not agree to this item remaining on the agenda and Mr. Molotov being able to veto other questions. If he knew what the French Government wanted to review he could consider its proposals but to place a general item on the agenda and have other Governments say they could not discuss certain questions placed the British in a very invidious position. He therefore suggested that these items be adjourned until they knew what decisions the Governments wanted reviewed.

    “Molotov said it seemed agreed that they take off Item 9.

    “Bevin said he had not agreed to anything.” (740.00119 Council/9–1145).

55. The attempt of Foreign Commissar Molotov to add Greece as an agenda item is recorded as follows in the American Minutes:

    “Molotov said he would like to add the question of the political situation in Greece.

    “Bevin said he declined to discuss this.

    “Molotov asked if Mr. Bevin was content with the situation in Greece.

    “Bevin pointed out that Mr. Molotov had objected to discussing the situation in Rumania and he found it strange that he proposed to discuss the situation in Greece.

    “Molotov proposed submitting these questions in writing.

    “Bevin rejoined that Greece was an Allied country and he was not prepared to discuss it” (740.00119 Council/9–1145)

56. Memorandum by the United States delegation, designated C.F.M. (45) 2, September 12, entitled “Italian Treaty Procedure”, p. 134.
57. See memorandum by the United Kingdom delegation, designated C.F.M.(45) 3, September 12, entitled “Draft Heads of Treaty with Italy”, p. 135.
58. Dated September 12, entitled “Draft Agreement Establishing Emergency Regime for European Inland Waterways”, p. 132.