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

Council of Foreign Ministers Files: Lot M–88: CFM 1945 London Minutes

Record of the Fifth Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, Lancaster House, London, September 15, 1945, 3 p.m.¹⁸

London, September 15, 1945, 3 p.m.

C.F.M.(P) (45) 5th Meeting

Present

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. F. Dulles	M. K. V. Novikov
Mr. A. Duff Cooper	Mr. C. E. Bohlen	M. S. A. Golunski
Sir N. Charles		M. V. N. Pavlov

France	China
M. Bidault (Chairman)	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. Poland

M. Molotov said that the Polish Provisional Government had addressed a note to the Soviet Delegation about the Arciszewski Government, and he understood that a note in similar terms had been addressed to all the other Governments represented on the Council of Foreign Ministers.¹⁹ The Polish Provisional Government had asked that the representations made in this note should be considered by the Council of Foreign Ministers during this Conference of the Council of Foreign Ministers, and the Soviet Delegation wished to support that request.

The representatives of other Delegations said that they had not clearly in mind the points raised in this note from the Polish Provisional Government; and M. Molotov undertook to circulate copies of this note to his colleagues.

The Council agreed to consider at their next meeting whether these representations by the Polish Provisional Government should be considered by the Council during the present Conference.

2. Italy: Procedure for Preparing Peace Treaty
(Previous Reference C.F.M.(P) (45) 3rd Meeting, Minute 4)

At their meeting on 14th September the Council had agreed that the Governments of all the United Nations who were at war with Italy should be invited to express their views in writing on the peace settlement for Italy.

M. Bidault proposed that he should send a letter to the representatives of these Governments in the following terms:—

“The Council of Foreign Ministers, now in Session at Lancaster House, has decided to invite the Governments of the United Nations who have been at war with Italy and who are not represented on the Council, to present to it, in writing, their views on the aspects of the peace settlement with Italy which are of a nature to be of interest to them.

I have therefore been instructed, in my capacity as Chairman of this meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers to invite your Government to express their views on this question, if they desire to do so. The Council requests that these communications should reach it before the 1st October.”

He suggested that a letter in these terms should be sent to the Governments of the following countries:—

Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iraq, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, South Africa, Yugoslavia.

M. Molotov suggested that this invitation should also be sent to the Governments of Poland, Byelo-russia and Ukraine. After discussion, the Council:—

(1) Agreed that an invitation in these terms should be sent to the countries listed above and also to Poland, Byelo-russia and the Ukraine;

(2) Invited M. Bidault to verify that the above list included all members of the United Nations who were at war with Italy, and authorised him to send an invitation in these terms to the Government of any of the United Nations at war with Italy which was not included in the above list;

(3) Agreed that M. Bidault should send these invitations, wherever possible, through the representative in London of the Government concerned.²⁰

3. Reparations From Germany (Previous Reference C.F.M.(P) (45) 4th Meeting, Minute 2)

The Council agreed that the memorandum on this subject (C.F.M.(45) 15)²¹ which had been submitted by the Soviet Delegation should be added at the end of the items included in the Agenda for the present Conference of Foreign Ministers.

4. Italy: Disposal of Italian Colonies (Previous Reference C.F.M. (P) (45) 4th Meeting, Minute 4)

The Council resumed their discussion of the proposals in Section III of the memorandum by the United States Delegation (C.F.M.(45) 16)²² on the disposal of the Italian Colonies.²³

Mr. Bevin said that the British Government had given further consideration to this question in the light of the views expressed at the last meeting of the Council. They could not agree to the proposal that the Soviet Government should assume trusteeship of Tripolitania. As he understood it, the Soviet Delegation had based their claim on the number of Italian divisions which had fought in Russia and the damage which they had inflicted there. But long before that time the British Commonwealth had been at war with Italy. South Africa had a vital interest in the future of the Italian Colonies. In the last war the South African people had joined in driving the Germans out of Africa. In this war again they had had to join in driving Italy from Africa. They could not look with favour on any arrangement which might place them in a similar position in the future. The British Government had supported the Soviet Government in its claims for adjustments of her western frontier, and in other settlements which had since been made. In view of the vital interest of the British Government in the North African area, he was very much surprised that the Soviet Delegation had put forward this claim in respect of Tripolitania, The British claims in that area had been put forward on the same basis as had Russian claims in Eastern Europe, namely security—a perfectly legitimate basis. All that the British Delegation proposed was that Italy should renounce all her possessions in Africa and that she should accept the arrangements made for the disposal of these territories, including questions of nationality, and that finally she should recognise in the Treaty the right of the four Powers to be responsible for the administration of those territories pending their final disposal.

In view, however, of the discussion which had taken place on the Council and the need to determine the final destiny of these Colonies at the same time as they were ceded by Italy, the British Delegation were prepared to accept the proposals outlined in the memorandum by the United States Delegation (C.F.M.(45) 16), subject to certain modifications.

One of these modifications related to Italian Somaliland and Eritrea. The British Delegation did not wish to be tied to the exact proposal put forward in the United States paper. While they agreed that Abyssinia needed an outlet to the sea, they would like the whole future of this area to be examined by the Deputies with particular regard to the economic problems of Abyssinia, Eritrea and Somaliland. If the matter were approached with an open mind and the possibility of territorial adjustments accepted, then other arrangements might be devised which would be more likely to promote the economic development of these territories and the betterment of their peoples. Broadly, therefore, he accepted the principles set out by Mr. Byrnes for the trusteeship of Somaliland but suggested an alternative geographical formula.

Should it be agreed to refer the matter to the Deputies to work out on such a basis, he would ask that the Governments of the British Dominions and India, who were vitally affected, should be entitled to express their views.

Finally, he would ask that the Deputies should consider the details of the plan, e.g. the character of the trusteeship administration, the functions of the administrator, the question of co-religionists in adjacent territories, the functions of the Advisory Committee. Such a trusteeship would be a heavy liability and he assumed that the cost would be borne collectively by the States collectively responsible for the trusteeship. The Deputies should also work out the relationship between the administrator and the Advisory Committee and their report should contain the detail of a practical working plan for carrying out the project outlined in the memorandum by the United States Delegation.

The British Delegation joined in supporting the proposal put forward by the United States Delegation with a view to avoiding friction between the Great Powers in these areas. It would afford an opportunity for a great experiment in international co-operation.

Mr. Byrnes said that he would like to express his sincere appreciation of the support given to his proposals by Mr. Bevin. He readily agreed that the Deputies should examine the area in order to see whether any alternative geographical arrangement would be likely to produce more satisfactory results from the economic point of view. He agreed that some arrangement would have to be made for sharing the cost of administration; and the United States Government would gladly bear their share. He also agreed that the Deputies should work out a detailed practical plan as suggested by Mr. Bevin. The administrator should, he thought, be appointed under the same conditions as would be the Secretary General of the United Nations organisation. In that case the Charter provided that neither the Secretary General nor his staff should take orders from any one of the United Nations.

Such a system of trusteeship would, of course, be an experiment; but it would be an effort to continue that unity of purpose which had enabled the United Nations to win the war.

M. Bidault said that M. Molotov had pointed out that the views expressed by the French Government on this question were only provisional. That was true; but there was a French proverb “Only the provisional lasts”. Mr. Bevin had alluded to the vital interest of the British Commonwealth in the future of the Italian Colonies. France also had a vital interest—in the full meaning of the word—in Africa, especially in North Africa. The Constitutional Assembly of France, which would shortly meet, would contain a number of Moslems, either Arabs or coloured people; and France could not be charged with pursuing in this respect “colonial” aims. Essential French interests were at stake, which must be defended and would be defended.

France was the first of the United Nations to be attacked by Italy; and the whole French people remembered Italian air attacks on innocent victims on their highways and the fate of their prisoners in the gaols of the O.V.R.A.²⁴ There was, however, a difference between Italy, which had turned in the end and helped in the fight against Fascism, and Germany, which had persisted to the end in her support of the Fascist system. It would not be in the best interests of Europe that Italy should be entirely stripped of all the positions [possessions?] which she had held before the beginning of the Fascist regime. Such an action would give Italy, which was already disposed to develop an inferiority complex, new grounds for complaint. He would now try to point out how that could be avoided.

All the Delegations had now expressed their views. All their proposals centered round trusteeship. The principle of trusteeship had been accepted at San Francisco but the details had not yet been worked out. There were differences even between the proposals put forward by the British and the United States Delegations. The Soviet Delegation preferred individual trusteeship by a single State. The French Delegation thought it better, after some necessary adjustments had been made, to give the trusteeship of these territories to the new democratic Italy. In view of these difficulties the British and United States Delegations favoured the application of collective trusteeship to these territories. Whatever system was finally adopted, it must follow the principles of trusteeship laid down at San Francisco. This implied that no limit should be set to the period of trusteeship; and particularly for these territories he saw no special urgency for terminating the trusteeship. International trusteeship was at present only a theoretical conception: it had not been worked out in detail. The French Government could not accept the application of international trusteeship to these territories until they were fully informed of its implications, especially as these territories were adjacent to a part of the French Empire which was one of vital concern to France. It was admitted that the details of the United States plan would have to be worked out by the Deputies. He would prefer that the whole problem should be referred to the Deputies; and, if this was agreed he could assure the Council that the French Delegation would co-operate whole-heartedly in assisting the Deputies to find a solution. He was not, however, prepared to commit himself in advance to any particular plan.

M. Molotov hoped that the Council would give to this problem the same close attention as it had received from the Soviet Government. He wished to comment both on the specific question most closely affecting the Soviet Union—the administration of Tripolitania—and also on the general principles of the trusteeship. The Soviet Government considered the future of Tripolitania as of primary importance to the Soviet people, and they must press their request to assume the trusteeship of that territory. The Soviet Government claimed a right to active participation in the disposal of the Italian Colonies, because Italy had attacked, and had inflicted enormous damage upon, the Soviet Union. No member of the Council considered that the Italian Colonies should be left to her on the pre-war basis. The territory of the Soviet Union was vast, stretching from the extreme east far into the west. It had a sea outlet in the north: it must also have the use of ports in the south, especially since it now had the right to use Dairen and Port Arthur in the Far East. The Soviet Government had no intention of restricting in any way the facilities available to the British Commonwealth for maintaining communications with all parts of the world. But Britain should not hold a monopoly of communications in the Mediterranean. Russia was anxious to have bases in the Mediterranean for her merchant fleet. World trade would develop and the Soviet Union wished to take her share in it. Further, as he had stated the previous day, the Soviet Government possessed wide experience in establishing friendly relations between various nationalities and was anxious to use that experience in Tripolitania. They would not propose to introduce the Soviet system into Tripolitania. They would take steps to promote a system of democratic government—though not, he added, on the lines which had recently been followed in Greece.

The purpose of trusteeship was, he believed, to ensure the development of a smaller territory by a large State. Such a large State could play a most useful role; but if it lacked a proper sense of responsibility there was a danger that the economic development of the territory would be hindered.

The Soviet Delegation adhered to the decisions taken at San Francisco, both on collective trusteeship and individual trusteeship under the control of the Trusteeship Council. It was necessary, however, to use caution in the first experiments in applying trusteeship. Mr. Byrnes had counselled caution at the previous meetings, but today appeared to be convinced of the practicability of international trusteeship and had urged rapid action. The Soviet Delegation, on the other hand, was very mindful of the need for care in these early stages. If the results of the early experiments were unfavourable, it would affect all future arrangements made under the trusteeship system. The United States proposals contained the elements both of individual trusteeship and of collective responsibility. They provided for a single administrator and an Advisory Committee. There was, however, a Russian saying that “if a child has seven nurses it won’t be looked after at all”.

The United States Delegation seemed to like the principle of collective trusteeship, but would this principle be applied elsewhere? Was there any example of its having been applied before in some Colony or Mandated territory? If there were a good example, the Russians would try to follow it, but in the absence of such an example they had to be careful.

In conclusion M. Molotov said that he was prepared to agree to the question being referred to the Deputies but he made the same reservation as M. Bidault, namely, that the Deputies should not be bound by any particular scheme.

Dr. Wang said that one of the most essential features of the United States’ plan was the fixing of a time limit for the completion of preparations for the independence of the territories to be placed under trusteeship. The Chinese Delegation was very anxious that this principle should be preserved in any plan that resulted from discussion by the Deputies. Otherwise one of the chief merits of the American proposal would be largely spoiled.

M. Molotov agreed.

Mr. Byrnes said that he was quite agreeable to his proposals being submitted to the Deputies for consideration, together with the amendments suggested by the British, and he thought that the Deputies should report back to the next Session of the Council. They could be instructed to receive suggestions from any qualified source as regards details and if, after consideration, they could not reach agreement a minority report could also be made for consideration by the Council. He suggested that the terms of reference for the Deputies should be as follows—“The matter of Trusteeship for the Italian Colonies shall be referred to the Deputies to work out the details along the general lines of the United States’ draft. The Deputies may however recommend such concrete territorial, economic or political changes as they may agree upon. In the absence of such agreement as to changes, they shall base their report upon the American proposals, making such individual reports to the Council as they may respectively deem helpful.”

As a result of suggestions made by M. Bidault and M. Molotov these terms of reference were modified as shown in the conclusions below.

After further discussion the Council:—

(1) Agreed that the disposal of the Italian Colonies should be referred to the Deputies with the following terms of reference:—

“The matter of trusteeship for the Italian Colonies shall be referred to the Deputies to work out the details, making the widest use possible of the proposals of the United States Delegation and taking into account the views expressed by the other Delegations. The Deputies may however recommend such concrete territorial, economic, or political changes as they may agree upon. In the absence of such agreement as to changes, they shall base their report upon the American proposals, making such individual reports to the Council as they may respectively deem helpful.”

(2) Invited the Deputies to present their report on this question to the Governments members of the Council not less than 14 days before the opening of the next Plenary Conference of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

(3) Agreed that the Deputies should have discretion to hear the views on this question 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 (see Minute 2 above) though no fresh invitations need be issued asking for an expression of views on this particular aspect of the settlement.

5. Date of Next Meeting

The Council agreed that their next meeting should be held on Monday, 17th September at 11 a.m., when they would resume their discussion of the memorandum by the United States Delegation on the Italian Treaty (C.F.M.(45) 16).

18. For text of the communiqué issued by the Council of Foreign Ministers after this meeting, see Department of State Bulletin, October 14, 1945, p. 565.
19. For text of the note from the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity to the Secretary of State, dated September 8, see vol. v, p. 366.
20. Replies to M. Bidault’s invitation were received from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, South Africa, and Yugoslavia. These replies were circulated to the Council. A message from the President of the Philippines sent through the Department of State expressed appreciation for the invitation but stated that the Philippine Government had no suggestions to offer. None of these messages are printed.
21. Ante, p. 175.
22. Ante, p. 179.

23. The American minutes of the fifth meeting record the following discussion regarding the question of whether the matter of the Dodecanese Islands should be linked with the question of the Italian colonies:

    “Bidault said it was necessary to record that the question of the Dodecanese was linked up with the discussion of the Italian colonies. They could now continue the discussion of one or both of these questions.

    “Byrnes said the question of the Dodecanese was passed at the request of the Soviet Delegation without specific agreement that it be considered as a part of the question of Italian colonies. However, as the question of the Dodecanese was number 5 on their list, it might properly be considered first.

    “Molotov said at first that he had no objection, but then revealed that he had misunderstood the proposal.

    “Byrnes did not think the question to be of vital importance. The Dodecanese had been temporarily passed over at the request of the Soviet Delegation, but it had not been decided that it was to be examined as part of the question of Italian colonies. If the Soviet Delegation wished this question to be deferred until after they had completed the Italian colonies, he would agree. All he said was that he did not consider it a colony, and it should not be discussed as such.

    “Molotov did not want the question postponed but said that since they had started discussing the Italian colonies, he did not see why they should interrupt that discussion and turn to the Dodecanese. He agreed with Mr. Byrnes that the Dodecanese was not a colony, and he had heard no one try to prove that it was. He suggested that the question of the Dodecanese and the question of the colonies be considered together, not as one question but as two. The reason for this was that it was a matter of taking away territories which belonged to Italy. He suggested that they continue their discussion of the Italian colonies and then turn to the Dodecanese. The United States, Soviet, and Chinese Delegations had expressed their views on the Italian colonies, but the British and French Delegations had not yet expressed their final views.” (740.00119–Council/9–1145)

24. Secret police of the Italian Fascist regime.