Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Council of Foreign Ministers, Volume II

C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2063: US Delegation Minutes

United States Delegation Record, Council of Foreign Ministers, Second Session, Sixteenth Meeting, Paris, May 14, 1946, 11 a.m.²⁴

Paris, May 14, 1946, 11 a.m.

secret

Report of the Economic Committee

M. Byrnes called the meeting to order and reminded his colleagues that they had at their meeting of the previous afternoon decided to have a report from the Economic Committee. He wondered whether the Chairman of that Committee could make a report to the Council.

M. Bidault said that according to his information, the Economic Committee was meeting at that moment.

M. Byrnes said that he understood that there had been some question whether the Economic Committee ever had been in session. If the meeting was now taking place, that question would seem to be answered.

Since the Economic Committee was not ready to report at that particular moment, it was decided to defer consideration of the question until a later time during the course of the meeting.

Franco-Italian Frontier

M. Byrnes referred to the Commission which had been appointed to make an investigation in the Tenda-Briga area on the Franco-Italian frontier and asked whether that Commission was ready to make its report to the Council.

M. Bevin said that he understood that two members of the Commission were present.

M. Byrnes asked whether one of those members was ready to present the report of the Commission. He then called upon Mr. Marjoribanks.

M. Marjoribanks said that the Council of Foreign Ministers had on April 27, 1946 appointed a Commission composed of representatives of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and France to investigate the rectification of the Franco-Italian boundary in the upper Roya Valley claimed by France in the memorandum submitted on February 4, 1946 (CFM(D) (46) 15).²⁵ The Commission had made its investigation on the spot and had now submitted a report containing recommendations and conclusions concerning the sentiments of the people in the particular area in question, the language spoken there, and the question of the hydroelectric power generated in that area. The Commission had not understood that its terms of reference permitted it to take any specific recommendations on whether the area claimed should be left under Italian sovereignty or ceded to France. The conclusions of the Commission were to be found on pages 14 to 16 of the report (CFM (46) 56),²⁶ submitted on May 11, 1946. From these conclusions, it would be evident to the Council that, within the limited extent of the investigation, it appeared that the sentiments of the population were almost equally divided for and against the cession of the area to France. That conclusion had been based on the feelings expressed to the Commission by the various persons interviewed. In regard to language, both Italian and French were spoken and understood in the area. The local dialect in general used appeared to be akin to that spoken on the southern slopes of the Alps and to be nearer to Ligurian than to Piedmontese. It also had an affinity with the dialect of Nice and with those spoken in the lower part of the Roya Valley.

On the subject of the hydroelectric power, Mr. Marjoribanks said that at present Italy could make the most efficient use of electric power generated in the Tenda-Briga area. However, France could also use it efficiently if the French Government should be in a position to carry out its plans to construct a high tension line from Breil to Toulon, a distance of about 150 kilometers. Should there be no change in the present boundary, power from the Tenda-Briga area should be made available to supply the Sospel, Nice and Menton areas until the plants at Breil and Fontan had been rebuilt. If the claimed area should be ceded to France, provision should be made for the Italian railways to continue to draw power from the two generators at the San Dalmazzo plant, which had up to the present been reserved for this use. If the area should be ceded to France, the Commission recommended that negotiations take place between French and Italian interests to assure that Italy would continue to be supplied with power from this area until such time as alternative sources could be made available without serious disruption of the Italian economy. Whatever solution might be adopted with respect to the frontier, the Commission believed that the best way of utilizing the power resources of this area would be for the French and Italian interests jointly to work out an integrated plan for using the power of the entire Roya Valley.

M. Marjoribanks, in reply to a question asked by the Chairman, stated that the report had been unanimously agreed to by the Commission.

M. Byrnes then asked what action the Council desired to take on the report.

M. Bidault thought that, as the result of the report, he was justified in stating that the French demands were reasonable, and that he was ready to explain his basis for so thinking. When the county of Nice had been transferred from Italy to France in 1860, the boundary of that county had coincided with the line now claimed by France, Also, at that time a plebiscite had been held in Tenda and Briga. In the former town, it had resulted in a vote of 387 for France and one for Italy, and in Briga the vote had been 323 for France and one for Italy. Should these figures appear excessive, it might be recalled that there were more than two million votes in favor of the annexation of the county of Nice to France. Looking at the problem from the geographical point of view, it was evident that to reach Tenda from Italy it was necessary to go over mountains of a height of 1900 meters. In order to avoid this mountain route, it had been necessary to build a tunnel which was over two kilometers in length.

On the subject of the sentiments of the population, the Commission appeared to have interviewed a certain number of inhabitants and had not come to any definite conclusion. One of the reasons for this prudence on the part of the Commission might be the fact that it impartially listened to the opinions of the same number of persons in favor of each solution. It appeared from the report that at Tenda there was more feeling for Italy and at Briga for France. But it must be recalled that in Tenda the last freely elected mayor of the town spoke in favor of France. The Commission had not been duped by the manifestations apparently organized from outside the area or by the propaganda which had been carried on there since the French troops had withdrawn and a number of Italian workers had been brought in from the interior of Italy.

M. Bidault felt that it should be mentioned that when the French troops, after liberating this territory in 1944, had had to withdraw behind the 1860 frontier, the Italian police forces had come in. These police forces had not observed the attitude of neutrality which had been prescribed. Also, 150 to 200 young men had been forced to leave the area and go to France. Their departure had deprived the area of part of its dynamism, which had been replaced by a new dynamism coming from Italy.

M. Bidault reminded his colleagues that the Commission had recognized that the dialect of the inhabitants of the Tenda-Briga area was close to that of the Ligurian coast, which was the same as the dialect spoken in Nice. In addition, French was spoken by the entire population, as the Commission’s report had said. But French had never been taught in the schools. The fact that it was spoken and understood generally was the result of the economic and sentimental connections with France.

M. Bidault felt that the Commission’s conclusions on the subject of the hydroelectric plants in the Roya Valley confirmed what he had previously said at the Council’s earlier discussion on that question. He recalled that he had indicated that the total production of these plants amounted to one percent of the production of northern Italy and .7 percent of the production in Italy as a whole. The Commission had recommended that, if the frontier should be changed, Italy should be allowed to continue to use part of the hydroelectric power during the period of transition. He had already said that the French Government would have no objection to such an arrangement.

M. Bidault concluded by saying that for all these reasons and with full confidence in its own conclusions, the French Delegation persisted in pressing its claim to the Tenda-Briga area and asked that that claim be accepted by the Council.

M. Bevin remarked that no representative of the Italian Government had been heard on this question. He wondered whether the report might not be referred to the Deputies with the recommendation that they hear an Italian representative.

Referring to the arguments put forward by M. Bidault, M. Bevin felt that the plebiscite taken in 1860 was not the best evidence possible in regard to the sentiments of the population; it seemed even more dubious than the census of 1910, which had figured so prominently in the discussion on another frontier question. He wondered if it might he possible to take a plebiscite now, particularly since the conclusions of the report on that point seemed so evenly balanced. The other principal factor seemed to be the hydroelectric power. He felt that where economic interests were in conflict in frontier areas, there should be a joint effort, even to the point of joint ownership, in order to avoid difficulties. The position of the UK Delegation was perfectly clear on that point. A reading of the report showed that the economic questions were perfectly clear in this case. He would like to see the economic interests adjusted so that there would be no conflict between the two nations over them. As to the other factors, there seemed to be some doubt. The report was evenly balanced so far as the ethnic factor in the situation was concerned. If there should be a plebiscite it would, of course, have to be a completely impartial one. He did not wish to press this suggestion, but wished to hear the views of the French Government on it.

M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation considered the French Delegation’s proposal worthy of close attention. The data presented by the Commission which had been sent to investigate the proposal showed that the French Government had had reason to raise the question. Account should also be taken of the fact that it was from this area that Italy had launched its attack on France in 1940. Accordingly, it seemed to the Soviet Delegation that the proper course would be to have the question more fully examined by the Deputies.

M. Byrnes agreed with the view of the Soviet Delegation and favored referring the matter to the Deputies. He felt that the latter should be instructed particularly to give consideration to the recommendation made in the last paragraph of the Commission’s report, and that a commission of engineers should be established to determine the most efficient use which could be made of the water power resources of the region and also the possibilities of their development in the future.

M. Byrnes asked whether M. Bevin agreed to that proposal.

M. Bevin replied in the affirmative and said he should like the Deputies to examine also the points which he had raised.

M. Byrnes thought that the Deputies should understand that they were to give consideration to the suggestions made by Mr. Bevin, as well as those made by the other delegations.

M. Bidault wished to say that he agreed to referring the question of the Tenda-Briga area to the Deputies, it being understood that the Deputies would take into account all the remarks of the various delegations, including those which he himself had made.

M. Byrnes said that it was understood that the Deputies were so instructed.

Report of the Economic Committee

M. Byrnes referred again to the report of the Economic Committee, which he had mentioned earlier in the meeting, and asked Mr. Gregory, Chairman of the Committee, if he had a report to present.

Mr. Gregory reported that at the 41st meeting of the Deputies on April 26th, the Economic Committee had been instructed to report on the status of the subjects listed in Document CFM (46) 8.²⁷ After holding a number of meetings, the Committee had submitted on May 9 its report on those questions (CFM (46) 59).²⁸

M. Byrnes wished to know whether the Economic Committee had accomplished anything since the submission of that report.

Mr. Gregory replied that several meetings had been held since that date and a certain amount of progress had been made, but that none of the matters had been brought to a final conclusion.

M. Byrnes asked whether it was true that the Committee had been in session for some time in London before the present meeting of the Council in Paris and whether after all those meetings in London and Paris it was not ready to present any final report on any of the topics.

Mr. Gregory confirmed that that was the case.

M. Bidault suggested that the Economic Committee be instructed to continue its work. Should the subjects listed in the Committee’s report be discussed at the present meeting, the positions of the various Delegations might become so crystallized that it would be very difficult to work out agreements. If, on the other hand, the Committee could go on with its work, it might be possible to iron out some of the difficulties.

M. Byrnes said that the suggestion had been made that the Committee be requested to continue its examination of the matters before it, and that unless he heard objection to that disposition of the question, it would be considered as referred back to the Committee.

M. Molotov said that since the Committee had not finished its work it must continue until it produced some results.

M. Bevin thought that the Committee should be given some clear and definite instructions. Its work had gone on so long that it had reached the point of stagnation. Should not the Committee be told clearly that the Council of Foreign Ministers unanimously desired to have decisions on these questions?

M. Byrnes said that he believed the members of the Committee knew that it was the earnest desire of the Council to get agreement on these economic questions. He thought that each Delegation should instruct its representative on the Committee to do everything possible to that end.

M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation associated itself with the view expressed by M. Byrnes. It seemed to him that it would be proper also to make another remark regarding the work of the Economic Committee. He believed that the Committee should not go unduly into the details of the economic clauses in an attempt to make them as specific as possible. Attention should be concentrated on the main points and the Committee should not be carried away in its desire to draft detailed clauses. These would require months to complete.

M. Bevin did not wish the Economic Committee to become tied up in matters of detail, but he wished it to be clearly understood that the UK Delegation would not be satisfied with a series of vague statements which would be of no use after the treaties had been signed. These economics questions were vital for the relations of the UK with Italy and the other enemy countries after the conclusion of the treaties. From the point of view of restoring normal economic relations, the obligations of Italy in regard to trade, restitution of property, etc. should be clearly expressed in the treaty, in order that disputes might be avoided afterwards. If the treaty contained only vague generalities there was bound to be trouble. It was not his desire to burden the Economic Committee with, details, but the treaty clauses should be sufficiently detailed so that the signatories would know just what obligations they were undertaking.

Report of Other Committees

M. Byrnes said that he had been advised by the Chairman of the Naval Committee that that Committee had reached no agreement in addition to the report which it had submitted on May 8 (CFM (46) 58).²⁹ He was advised by the Chairman of the Military Committee that that Committee had nearly finished its work on the treaties. With respect to the work of the Committee on Italian Reparations, he wished to ask M. Bidault whether he had communicated to the Committee the information that at yesterday’s meetings of the Ministers a further discussion on reparations had taken place and that the Council desired the Committee to make further efforts in studying certain new sources of reparations.

M. Bidault replied that he had made such communications to the Committee. He understood that the Committee had not yet fixed a time for its meeting. Since the Council was expecting the Committee’s report on Wednesday at 11 a.m., he thought that the Committee should be instructed to meet immediately.

Withdrawal of Allied Troops From Enemy Countries

M. Molotov wished to come back to the military clauses to which the Chairman had just referred. He asked whether there would be in the treaty with Italy, as in the other treaties, a provision for the withdrawal of Allied troops after the conclusion of the peace treaty. He believed that the draft treaty in its present form contained no reference to the maintenance of Allied troops in Italy after the conclusion of the treaty. However, there was no mention either of the fact that they would be withdrawn after the treaty was signed.

M. Byrnes said that he had no information on what the Military Committee had recommended with respect to a clause of that character. In his view, the same provision should be in all the treaties. There should be a provision for the withdrawal of all Allied troops except those necessary to maintain lines of communication.

M. Byrnes said that he was informed by the US Deputy that the records of the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th meetings had not been approved. He asked whether there were any observations on those records.

M. Molotov said that they had not finished their consideration of the question which he had raised. Had all the Delegations stated their views? Did the other Delegations associate themselves with the opinion expressed by M. Byrnes, which the Soviet Delegation supported?

M. Byrnes said that the Chairman had not prevented anyone from talking on the subject. He would be glad to hear any comments.

M. Bevin said that he agreed in principle, but would like to see the text of any detailed proposal.

M. Bidault said that it was known that the French Government was not directly interested in this question as there were no French troops in any of those territories. In principle, the French Delegation agreed with M. Byrnes’ suggestion.

M. Molotov said that if all Delegations were in agreement, they might place it on record that they agreed in principle that after the conclusion of the peace treaty with Italy Allied troops would be withdrawn except those required to maintain lines of communication, and that the Military Committee should be instructed to draw up corresponding clauses.

M. Byrnes said that, while he agreed in principle with the necessity of maintaining troops to protect lines of communication, he thought it essential for world peace and for the economic welfare of those countries that the number of troops remaining, even for the purpose of protecting lines of communication, should be reduced to a minimum at the earliest possible date. The US Delegation would be willing to submit, for the consideration of the Military Committee, a paper setting forth the maximum number of troops which should be required in each case for maintaining lines of communication.

M. Bevin remarked that there was a question outstanding in regard to Bulgaria. The matter of the withdrawal of Allied troops from Bulgaria had not been disposed of. Could the Council now agree that the Soviet troops on the Rumanian side of the Danube would be able to take care of that line of communication and that Bulgaria should be free of Soviet troops, as had been agreed in London?

M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation was ready to consider the question on terms of reciprocity. If Allied troops were withdrawn from Italy the Soviet Delegation was ready to discuss the question with regard to Bulgaria.

M. Bevin thought that Rumania and Hungary were parallel cases with Italy if troops were kept there, but not Bulgaria.

M. Molotov said that the fact was that there had never been any objection to the maintenance of Soviet troops in Rumania during the period necessary to protect the lines of communication of the Red Army with the Soviet zone in Austria. There was no other way to insure the protection of those lines except by stationing troops in Rumania. The necessity of that had been admitted by the British proposal made in London the previous September. On the other hand, there had never been such a proposal with respect to Italy. It should be recalled that the British draft proposal in September 1945 made a provision for the maintenance of Allied troops in Rumania and Hungary; there was no proposal of a similar nature for the maintenance of Allied troops in Italy after the signature of the peace treaty.

M. Molotov said that it seemed to him that there were shorter ways by which Great Britain could communicate with the British zone in Austria. The direct lines through Germany might be better than the route by way of Italy. If it should be possible to reach agreement on the withdrawal of Allied troops from Italy, then the Soviet Delegation would be willing, on the basis of reciprocity, to discuss the proposal that only the Rumanian bank of the Danube be garrisoned, the Soviet Government not claiming the right to station troops on the Bulgarian bank. This would, of course, be possible only if the British and American Governments would agree that their troops of occupation would be withdrawn from Italy. It should be borne in mind that the presence of Allied troops in Italy after the conclusion of the peace treaty would wound the amour propre of Italy which until recently had the status of a great power.

M. Bevin said that, on consulting the record, he found that this question had been raised in London. At that time he had said that he did not object in principle to the proposal for the withdrawal of Allied troops from Italy. He had suggested that the Deputies, when considering the question, might come to the conclusion that the inclusion of such a clause might lead to difficulties since the maintenance of troops for protecting certain lines of communication in Italy might be necessary after the conclusion of the treaty. He had been willing, however, to leave the question to the Deputies. He was now quite ready to accept the Chairman’s proposal that the matter of withdrawing Allied troops be examined by the Military Committee. He himself saw very little need of keeping troops there after the peace treaty, although he would wish to consult his military experts before making a definite statement on it. He would ask his Chiefs of Staff concerning the possibility of using lines of communication running through Germany as Mr. Molotov had suggested. If only the question of a treaty with Austria could be settled, of course, the whole problem would disappear.

M. Bevin continued that with respect to Rumania he merely wished to adhere to the decision taken in London. He agreed with Mr. Molotov that that decision was quite clear. It read as follows:

“It was agreed that, on the conclusion of the peace treaty, all Allied forces would be withdrawn from Rumania (except as might be provided for the maintenance of the lines of communication of the Red Army with the Soviet Zone of occupation in Austria) and that all unused currency and goods would be returned to the Rumanian Government.”³⁰

That had been agreed. Lest there be misunderstanding on M. Molotov’s part that he was going back on that agreement, M. Bevin desired to repeat that he adhered to each word of it. He wished equally to adhere to the other London decision which concerned Bulgaria. It read as follows:

“It was agreed that on the conclusion of the peace treaty all Allied forces would be withdrawn from Bulgaria and that all unused currency and goods would be returned to the Bulgarian Government.”³¹

M. Byrnes said that all he wished to add to the discussion of the subject was his expression of great regret that the Soviet Delegation would not agree to have the Council consider at this time the conclusion of a treaty with Austria. The conclusion of such a treaty would dispose of the question of maintaining lines of communication. The Austrian Government wished to see the American and Soviet and other Allied troops withdrawn from the country. The soldiers stationed there wished to go home. By making a treaty with Austria the Four Powers could meet the wishes of the Austrian Government and of the Allied soldiers and at the same time eliminate the whole question of maintaining lines of communication through Italy, Rumania, Hungary or Bulgaria. Thus, they would contribute to the peace of world.

M. Molotov said that the Four Powers had been discussing the five peace treaties for four months. They had not completed their examination of the drafts. It was hardly likely that the Council’s work would be facilitated if they were to take up a sixth treaty before having completed those presently before them. He thought it would be best to complete that work first.

M. Byrnes said that they had just devoted half an hour to discussing certain clauses of the Italian, Rumanian and Bulgarian treaties. That discussion would not have been necessary at all if it were agreed that there should also be a treaty with Austria. The question of lines of communication through Rumania and Bulgaria would not arise. He wished to ask seriously and earnestly whether the Soviet Delegation would not agree to leave the Austrian question to the Deputies and at least get work started on the preparation of the treaty with Austria.

M. Molotov said that it was a matter to be considered by the Ministers.

M. Byrnes replied that all the other treaties had to be referred to the Deputies. If it were insisted that the discussion on the Austrian treaty could be begun not by the Deputies but only by the Foreign Ministers, he was afraid that there would be a long delay in concluding a treaty with Austria.

M. Byrnes then suggested returning to the discussion of the treaties before the Council and asked whether any Delegation desired to discuss any particular question.

M. Bevin said that the great problem which was still outstanding in connection with the treaties with the Danubian countries was the problem of the Danube itself.

M. Molotov desired to ask whether the question of the withdrawal of Allied troops from Italy and Bulgaria after the conclusion of peace treaties with those two states should be referred to the Military Committee. Had the Council made a decision on that point?

M. Byrnes replied that the Council had made a decision with respect to Bulgaria at its London meeting. The matter had been referred to the Deputies for drafting. The question had now been raised with respect to Italy. He was entirely willing to have that question referred to the Military Committee. It should not be referred to the Deputies for consideration in connection with the Bulgarian treaty, but to the Military Committee with instructions to draft a clause similar to that agreed upon for the Rumanian treaty.

M. Molotov said that neither at London or at Paris had a decision been taken on the subject of maintaining Allied troops in Italy after the conclusion of the peace treaty. Nevertheless, such a possibility seemed to be admitted now.

M. Byrnes said he did not know what M. Molotov meant. It was admitted by him (Mr. Byrnes) that troops might be kept in Italy to maintain lines of communication as long as the position of the Soviet Government with respect to Austria required the maintenance of American and British troops there. But he had made it plain that the US wished its troops out of Austria and out of Italy.

M. Molotov proposed that for the time being the Council place on record the point on which all were agreed in principle, namely, that the Military Experts should discuss the withdrawal of Allied troops from Italy and from Bulgaria after the conclusion of peace treaties with those two countries. Was there actual agreement on that principle?

M. Bevin said that he could not go back on the London decisions. Those were his instructions. He was, however, willing to refer the question of Italy to the Military Committee in order to see what troops should be kept there to protect the lines of communication. It might be that no troops at all would be needed. It would be given to the Military Committee as an open question.

M. Molotov had no objection to referring to the Committee only the question of withdrawal of troops from Italy, but he wished to make the reservation that no decision had been made in London for the maintenance of Allied troops in Italy after the conclusion of the peace treaty. If, however, the absence of such a decision was interpreted as meaning that Allied troops might be maintained in Italy after the conclusion of the peace treaty, then the Soviet Delegation would urge also that Soviet troops be stationed in Bulgaria to protect the lines of communication. But if the Council should agree that no troops should be left in Italy after the conclusion of the treaty, then the Soviet Delegation would agree to discuss this question with respect to Bulgaria as well.

M. Byrnes said he did not think that there was any reason for differing views on this matter. It was a question of a military clause in the treaty with Italy. That question had been referred to the Military Committee for an opinion. It had nothing to do with Bulgaria or Rumania or Austria or any other question. It was a matter of drafting a clause for the Italian treaty. The problem was whether, after the ratification of the Italian treaty, it would be necessary to maintain troops in Italy to protect the lines of communication.

Records of Previous Meeting

M. Byrnes again asked whether the minutes of the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th meeting could be approved.

There was no objection and the records were approved.

M. Bidault raised the question of the agenda of the next meeting to be held in the afternoon.

M. Byrnes said he understood that it had been agreed that the Council could discuss the important questions in the several peace treaties which remained undecided.

It was then agreed that the Council should meet at 4 p.m. that afternoon to discuss any major questions connected with the five peace treaties which still remained undecided.

The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

24. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
25. Ante, p. 10.
26. Ante, p. 187.
27. C.F.M.(46) 8, April 27, 1946, is not printed.
28. Dated May 9, 1946, p. 320.
29. In this report, which is not printed, the Committee of Naval Experts observed that it had been unable to reach agreement on the allocation of battleships and cruisers, and was therefore presenting an interim report in order that the Council of Foreign Ministers might give a decision on the points at issue. (C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2061: CFM Documents)
30. The quotation is from the Record of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, London, September 20, 1945, Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ii, p. 279.
31. The quotation is from the Record of Decisions of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, London, September 21, 1945, ibid., p. 299.