Council of Foreign Ministers Files: Lot M–88: CFM London Minutes
Record of the Tenth Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, Lancaster House, London, September 18, 1945, 9 p.m.
Present
| U.K. | U.S.A | U.S.S.R |
| Mr. Bevin | Mr. Byrnes | M. Molotov |
| Sir R. I. Campbell | Mr. J. Dunn | M. F. T. Gousev |
| Sir A. Clark Kerr | Mr. J. F. Dulles | M. K. V. Novikov |
| Sir N. Charles | Mr. C. E. Bohlen | M. S. A. Golunski |
| France | China |
| M. Bidault (Chairman) | Dr. Wang Shih Chieh |
| M. Couve de Murville | Dr. Wellington Koo |
| General Catroux | Dr. Victor Hoo |
| Australia | New Zealand | South Africa |
| Dr. H. V. Evatt | Mr. R. M. Campbell | Mr. Heaton Nicholls |
| Yugoslavia | ||
| M. Edward Kardelj | ||
| M. Ljubo Leontic | ||
| M. Sava Kosanovic |
1. Italy: Procedure for Preparing Peace Treaty
(Previous Reference: C.F.M.(P) (45) 5th Meeting, Minute 2)
Before stating the views of the Australian Government on the problem of the Yugoslav Frontier and Trieste, Dr. Evatt referred to [Page 240] the procedure for consultation with Governments not represented on the Council which were directly interested in the peace settlement with Italy.
Dr. Evatt recalled that at the Council’s meeting that morning (C.F.M.(P) (45) 8th Meeting) the Chairman had said that the best way to secure just and peaceful settlements was to have wider and more open discussions with all interested parties. He welcomed this statement and particularly the fact that this meeting of the Council, facing an important issue of territorial adjustment, was hearing the views, not only of the countries directly interested, but also those whose claim to be heard was founded on the fact that they had been active belligerents in the war.
That applied to Australia because from the date of the outbreak of war in 1939 she had been engaged in total war both in Europe and in the Pacific. Her interest did not spring from any territorial claim, but from the heavy sacrifices she had made as a belligerent, and the fact that for ten of the last thirty years she had been actively engaged in wars which actually broke out in Europe. She therefore claimed the right to participate, to some reasonable degree, in the settlement of European questions and was glad to have an opportunity of putting her views before the Council.
The specific question on which Australia has been asked to give her views was, however, only one aspect of the peace settlement with Italy. As all members of the Council were aware, the claim made by Australia and other States in her position was that it would be wiser, and more expedient, and certainly more just, that some arrangement should be made for such countries to be heard on all aspects of the Italian peace settlement, either by expressing their views orally to the Council, or by being assured that any draft treaty prepared by the Council would be open to full review by a Conference of all States which had from the beginning been active belligerents in the war.
It was almost as important that the procedure for reaching the peace settlement should be just as that the settlement itself should be just. This procedure should be democratic, and participation in it should not be limited to the great Powers. President Wilson had said that peace covenants should be openly arrived at. This was not practicable to the fullest extent, but the principle behind it was practical. The Dominion of Canada was not present at this meeting of the Council because her Government desired recognition of a broader principle of consultation than that implied in an invitation to express views on one particular aspect of the settlement. He made this claim, not on behalf of Australia only, but on behalf of all countries not represented on the Council which had made a substantial contribution to [Page 241] Italy’s defeat. They were not many in number—there were many nominally at war with Italy, but only a few had taken an active part in the fighting—and he hoped that the Council would devise a regular procedure for bringing them into consultation.
Mr. Campbell, in the course of his statement on the problem of the Yugoslav-Italian Frontier, said that the Government of New Zealand, as one of the active belligerents seeking a just and enduring peace, were vitally interested in the terms of the peace settlement with Italy; and claimed a right to take part in the preparation of the Peace Treaty.
Mr. Heaton Nicholls, in the course of his statement, said that, on behalf of the South African Government, he joined with the representatives of Australia and New Zealand in asserting the right of his Government to express their views on all aspects of the peace settlement with Italy. Those countries which had made a substantial contribution towards Italy’s defeat and would share in the, future burden of maintaining world peace were entitled to be consulted in the preparation of the Peace Treaties.
M. Bidault said that the Council of Foreign Ministers would bear in mind the claims put forward by the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to be consulted on other aspects of the peace settlements with Italy.
2. Italian Peace Treaty: Yugoslav-Italian Frontier and Trieste
(Previous Reference: C.F.M.(P) (45) 9th Meeting)
Views of Governments of British Dominions
The views of the Australian Government on this question were stated to the Council by Dr. H. V. Evatt. A summary of Dr. Evatt’s statement is being circulated separately as C.F.M.(45) 28.81
The views of the New Zealand Government were stated to the Council by Mr. R. M. Campbell. The text of Mr. Campbell’s statement is reproduced in C.F.M.(45) 29.82
[Page 242]The views of the South African Government were stated to the Council by Mr. Heaton Nicholls. A summary of Mr. Nicholls’ statement is being circulated separately as C.F.M.(45) 30.83
Further Views of the Yugoslav Government
M. Kardelj made a further statement in reply to the views expressed by the representative of the Italian Government at the Council’s meeting that afternoon (C.F.M.(P) (45) 9th Meeting).
A summary of M. Kardelj’s statement is being circulated separately as C.F.M.(45) 31.84
3. Agenda for Eleventh Meeting of the Council
The Council decided to hold their next meeting on Wednesday, 19th September, 1945 at 11 a.m., and agreed that they should then resume their discussion of the Italian Peace Treaty, dealing particularly with the problem of the Yugoslav-Italian Frontier and Trieste, and Reparations and Economic and Financial Matters (Sections VI and VII of the memorandum by the United States Delegation C.F.M. (45) 16.85
- The summary of Dr. Evatt’s statement is not printed. He proposed that the ethnographical line be adopted as the frontier between Yugoslavia and Italy and that Trieste should be demilitarized and placed under the control of an international body on which both the Italian and Yugoslav Governments would be represented and with which might be associated an advisory body representing the population of Trieste itself. Dr. Evatt’s draft proposals for an international body to control Trieste were set forth in C.F.M.(45) 32, September 20, p. 284.↩
- The summary of Mr. Campbell’s statement is not printed. He stated that New Zealand would support a Yugoslav-Italian frontier based on the ethnic line, reducing to a minimum the number of Yugoslavs and Italians in the territory of each other. As to Trieste, the New Zealand Government felt that forming Trieste, and such adjacent territory as might be expedient, into a separate enclave under the protection of the United Nations was the least objectionable of the possible alternatives.↩
- The summary of Mr. Nicholls’ statement is not printed. Although South Africa was not concerned with the Yugoslav-Italian frontier problem and did not offer any advice on the question, it did urge that Trieste should become a free port, open without hindrance on equal terms to the commerce of the world.↩
- September 19, p. 258.↩
- Dated September 14, “Suggested Directive to Deputies …”, p. 179.↩