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, Twenty-Second Meeting, Palais du Luxembourg, Paris, June 19, 1946, 3 p.m.⁴⁶

Paris, June 19, 1946, 3 p.m.

secret

Report of the Deputies

Mr. Byrnes opened the meeting and requested M. Vyshinsky to present the Report of the Deputies.

M. Vyshinsky stated that the Deputies had agreed on a suggested Agenda for the Foreign Ministers. Heading that Agenda were two questions left over from yesterday’s meeting, namely, Restitution and Economic and Financial Clauses relating to Ceded Territories. In conformity with the Agenda adopted on the previous day the Council was to consider the various economic clauses which had not yet been examined, Articles 66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74 and 75 of the draft peace treaty with Italy [CFM(D) (46) 177].⁴⁷ These questions had been discussed by the Deputies on their merits. Most of them had been referred to the Economic Committee for preliminary consideration. Two Articles, 66 and 74, were now referred to the Foreign Ministers. On Article 74, which dealt with the expropriation of the property of United Nations nationals in Italian territory, no agreement had been reached by the Deputies. The latter had decided to report their differences to the Ministers. The Soviet Delegation had proposed that equal treatment be accorded to Italian nationals and United Nations nationals, and had also suggested that this Article be deleted from the Treaty if the Soviet proposal was not acceptable. On Article 66, dealing with compensation for personal injuries to United Nations nationals, no agreement had been reached by the Deputies.⁴⁸ The Soviet Delegation had proposed an amendment which had not been accepted. The Soviet Delegation had made the alternative suggestion that the Article be deleted. Thus the Agenda which was now recommended by the Deputies to the Foreign Ministers contained, in addition to the question which remained from the previous day’s Agenda (Restitution and Ceded Territories), Articles 74 and 66.

Restitution

Mr. Byrnes indicated that the first item for consideration was the definition of property subject to restitution.⁴⁹ Judging from the various proposals there did not seem to be a great difference of opinion among the Deputies on this point. The American, British and French Delegations thought that property removed by force or duress from United Nations territory to Italy should be returned. The Soviet Delegation apparently objected to the use of the words “or duress”. It was assumed that all Delegations wished the Article to cover acts of intimidation and coercion as well as acts of removal by direct physical means. Would the Soviet Representative indicate what was his objection to the use of the word “duress”? It might then be possible to get together on this question.

M. Molotov stated that the Soviet Delegation had no objection to the formula being supplemented as suggested by the other Delegations.

Mr. Byrnes said that he understood that it was then agreed by all four Delegations to use the expression “force or duress” and that the Council could pass on to the next point. This was the question of the burden of proof, which appeared in Paragraph 1 of Part III of the Report under consideration. The French Delegation apparently had expressed views on this point and might wish to give some further explanation of its position.

M. Bidault said that his views were quite simple. In this rather complicated matter of the restitution of looted property it was incumbent upon one of the parties, France for example, to prove that the property in question was in fact French property. This being proved it was then incumbent upon the other party, Italy, to prove the French assertions that the property had been taken by force or duress were wrong. It would not be easy for the victim to show that force had been used. It would be normal for him, however, to have to show that the property had belonged to him. This question was after all a minor matter and it seemed to be common sense to solve it in this way. Should French property be found in Italy, it was normal to expect that the reason for its presence there should be explained. Even in the simplest cases the holder of such property who could not explain its acquisition could be assumed to be a receiver. It would be up to him to prove that he was not a receiver. For those reasons the French Delegation agreed with the American proposal, which coincided with the French views as explained above. Considering the minor importance of the question that seemed to be sufficient explanation.

M. Molotov wished to make a proposal. He suggested that the question of on whom the burden of proof should rest ought to be decided in accordance with the normal judicial procedure. It was a matter which the lawyers could work out.

Mr. Bevin said that as he read the clause, the French proposal seemed to be the opposite of normal procedure, at least of what would be normal procedure under British law. Under that law the burden of proof was on the claimant. The French proposal seemed to reverse the normal practice.

M. Molotov said that his experts informed him that the French proposal was not in conformity with the usual legal procedure, which was the same in most countries including France. The usual practice was for the claimant to prove his case.

M. Bidault said that, although not an expert himself in these matters, he believed M. Molotov’s interpretation to be right. That was precisely the reason why the French Delegation wished to have a clause of this kind in the Treaty itself. This was a case which should not be dealt with under normal legal procedure in the country concerned. There had been during the war several cases on a large scale of the taking of property by force or duress. If French property, duly recognized as such, was in Italy without justification, it seemed right that the claimant should not be required to prove that force or duress had been used and that the present holder of the property should be required to prove his right to it.

Mr. Byrnes thought that the language suggested by the United States Representative was quite clear and might represent a solution to the difficulty. That proposal put the burden of proof on the claimant government to identify the property and to prove the original ownership. Once that had been proved then the burden would shift to Italy to show that the property was not removed by force or duress. It seemed that approximately eight governments had agreed to this language in connection with the restoration of property from Germany. There was much to be said for the argument which M. Bidault had made to the effect that this was an abnormal situation. If the Governments of Yugoslavia or Greece could show that certain property in Italy was Yugoslav or Greek property, then the burden should rest with the Italian Government to prove that the property had not been removed by force or duress.

M. Molotov suggested that they might instruct the Economic Experts to study the matter again.

Mr. Byrnes asked whether there was any objection to that procedure.

Mr. Bevin said that the Council must charge the experts to reach an agreement on the question.

The subject was referred to the Committee of Economic Experts with instructions to give it further study and to reach agreement.

Economic and Financial Provisions Relating to Ceded Territories

Mr. Byrnes stated that the next question on the Agenda was “Economic and Financial Provisions relating to Ceded Territories.” He asked M. Vyshinsky, the present Chairman of the Deputies, what was the present status of that problem. Had the Economic Committee agreed upon the provisions? M. Vyshinsky replied that the Economic Committee had agreed to Part I of the report [Appendix VI of CFM(D) (46) 177], but that there were reservations under items 1, 2, and 3.⁵⁰

M. Molotov asked that the Council approve the Report of the Committee. He suggested that they approve it with the three reservations.

Part I of the Committee’s report was then approved by the Council subject to the reservations stated in the report itself.

General Economic Relations

Mr. Byrnes stated that the next item on the Agenda was Part II of the Economic Committee’s report on general economic relations [Appendix IV of CFM(D) (46) 177].⁵¹ He understood that the American, British and French Delegations proposed that in cases where the property of United Nations nationals should be taken by the Italian Government, provision should be made for just an effective compensation. The Soviet Delegation had originally proposed inclusion of a clause providing that United Nations nationals would be treated on a basis of equality with Italian nationals. The position of the United States Delegation was that it was an established principle of international law that a state which took the property of a national of another state must make compensation for it. It was irrelevant to that principle to consider what treatment a government might give to its own nationals. Was there anything which the Soviet Representative wished to say which would offer the possibility of reaching agreement on this point?

M. Molotov said that it seemed to him that references to international law were open to dispute. His view was that the question under discussion had no direct bearing on the peace treaty itself. There might be various cases in which the American or the Soviet proposal was applicable, but there might also be other cases which would not be covered by either one of those proposals. Since the proposal of the Soviet Delegation might be open to dispute and might prove unacceptable to other Delegations, he was ready to suggest that the clause be deleted from the treaty. If that were done, the question could be decided through bilateral agreements.

Mr. Bevin remarked that the proposed clause was only intended to cover a period of 18 months if he interpreted it correctly. Was it not governed by the provision in Part I on that point? If that was so, it would appear that the American proposal could be accepted by all. The purpose was not to leave a void between the date of the conclusion of the treaty and the time by which bilateral treaties might be negotiated. All the Delegations ought to be able to accept the American proposal as providing a way to cover that period.

M. Molotov thought that the best thing to do was to delete the Article and provide for the settlement of the question through bilateral agreements.

No agreement was reached.

Compensation to United Nations Nationals for Personal Injuries

Mr. Byrnes suggested going on to the next item, personal injuries (Article 66). Proposals on this point had been submitted by the British and French Delegations. These proposals would obligate the Italian Government to pay compensation to United Nations nationals who suffered injury during the war as a result of actions of the Italian Government. Did either of these Delegations wish to explain or discuss the proposals they had submitted?

M. Bidault remarked that from the length of the French proposal it would seem to be important, but his colleagues knew well that the importance could not be judged on that basis. This was a minor question and the proposed obligation would represent a very moderate burden on the Italian Government. There was a certain number of French citizens, not very many, who were now in a very difficult situation as a result of action taken by Italy after the Italian declaration of war on France. This was a question of principle and equity. The amount involved would be very small.

M. Molotov said that he agreed with the proposal on the condition that justice be done to all United Nations nationals who suffered as a result of Italian aggression. If this principle was applicable to United Nations nationals residing in Italian territory, it would be just to apply it to United Nations nationals who resided in the territories of the United Nations and who suffered as the result of the invasion of those territories by the Italian armies. Therefore it was suggested that an amendment be made to the British proposal, inserting the words “or in the territory of any of the United Nations which were occupied by Italian forces” after the words “in Italian territory.”

Mr. Byrnes stated that the United States Delegation believed that, if a clause were to be put into the treaty on this subject, M. Molotov’s amendment would accord with the view of the United States. If a national of Greece, for example, was in Italy and was injured, he could recover compensation under the language of the original proposal, but if he lived in Greece and was injured by an Italian bomb he could not recover. That did not seem to be just. The United States Delegation understood that the Soviet Delegation had proposed to delete this clause from the treaty. The United States Delegation would prefer that solution. If that were not agreed to, it would prefer to include all United Nations nationals under the terms of the Article, wherever they happened to live.

Mr. Bevin said that he did not dispute the justice or the reasonableness of the amendment suggested by M. Molotov. To carry out that obligation, however, would obviously be impractical. In the light of the discussion which had taken place at the two previous meetings, the United Kingdom Delegation was willing to withdraw its proposal.

Mr. Byrnes said that, in view of Mr. Bevin’s statement, he should like to hear from the French Delegation.

M. Bidault said that he appreciated the arguments made by Mr. Byrnes, he agreed that the amendment suggested by M. Molotov was based on equity, and appreciated what Mr. Bevin had said. The French Delegation therefore would not insist on its proposal.

M. Molotov said that all his colleagues had admitted the justice of his proposal, but now they were suggesting that it be withdrawn. That was not easy to understand. For his part he had admitted the justice not only of his own proposal but of those of the French and British Delegations. They ought to find some way to meet those just demands.

Mr. Byrnes said that he had understood that the Soviet Delegation proposed the deletion of the Article, since he had seen a note to that effect on page 29 of the report. It was there stated that the United States and Soviet Delegations proposed its deletion. When he had read that report before the present meeting he had agreed that the Soviet proposal was right and he had therefore stated that he preferred to have the clause deleted in accordance with the position which the United States and Soviet Deputies had taken.

M. Molotov said that the Soviet proposal to delete the Article had been made with respect to the language then suggested. Under that language the Greeks who had stayed at home had not been provided for. If now they were to be borne in mind, the language as amended appeared to be just and proper, and by retaining it just claims could be met at least to some extent. Perhaps the Article might be confined to persons who had lost their capacity to work or to dependents who had lost the wage-earning member of the family.

M. Bidault thought that his colleagues might agree to accept the principle mentioned by M. Molotov, the principle that United Nations nationals, either in Italy or in United Nations territory, were entitled to reparation, and might recognize that the burden of full responsibility for this damage would be too heavy for Italy to bear. He agreed with M. Molotov that the responsibility to compensate for personal injuries should be limited. It might be made the subject of a special fund out of which would be paid only persons who had suffered greatly. Perhaps a maximum limit could be placed on that fund; it might total a few hundred million lire. By this solution the principle of responsibility for personal injuries would be maintained but the burden on Italian economy would be kept within reasonable limits.

Mr. Bevin said that so far as the United Kingdom Delegation was concerned he had withdrawn the proposal. There were British nationals concerned, but the British Government would undertake to look after them. He could not see how these claims could be settled. On reexamination of the question after the Deputies had discussed it the previous day, he had realized that it presented almost insoluble difficulties with respect to claims and equitable payments. He therefore accepted the original Soviet proposal for deletion, which was supported by the U.S. Delegation.

Mr. Byrnes said that as the situation now stood, the French Delegation had made a proposal but had withdrawn it. The U.K. Delegation had made a proposal also and had withdrawn it. The Soviet Delegation indicated that it would like to make a proposal on the subject and could do so at any time. But unless there were a change of mind on the part of the British or French Delegations, there was now no proposal before the Council.

M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation wished to put forward the same proposal as had been made by the British Delegation with the addition of the amendment which he had suggested earlier in the meeting. The Soviet Delegation thought that consideration might be given to M. Bidault’s proposal for the establishment of a special fund in Italy to provide at least partial compensation. The Soviet Union was not so rich as to be able to satisfy all the just claims of its nationals without resorting to such a fund. Nor were Greece or several other Allied countries which had suffered in a position to do that.

Mr. Byrnes said that the Council would consider the Soviet proposal as having been put forward. The U.S. Delegation was opposed to it. He had thought that M. Molotov had also favored deletion. He (Mr. Byrnes) was still opposed to it now when he found that M. Molotov favored it. Was there any further discussion?

M. Molotov said that the Council might instruct the Deputies to try to find suitable language for this Article, taking into account the exchange of views which had taken place.

Mr. Byrnes had no objection to referring it to the Deputies, but said that he would have to instruct his Deputy to oppose the inclusion of such an Article.

M. Molotov said that in that case there was no purpose in instructing the Deputies.

Mr. Byrnes repeated that he would be happy to refer it to the Deputies on the basis that his position was fully understood. If there was no discussion on M. Molotov’s proposal that the question go to the Deputies, then the matter must be considered as not disposed of, and they could go on with the next item on the Agenda.

M. Molotov requested that the question of compensation for personal injuries be deferred and taken up at some future meeting of the Foreign Ministers. (All Delegations agreed).

Agenda for Next Meeting

Mr. Bevin said that it was his understanding that the Council had agreed, on the basis of the report made by the Deputies the day before, that after finishing the economic clauses it would go on to take up the other questions listed in CFM(46) (116).⁵² Mr. Byrnes said that that was his understanding of the decision which the Council had taken the day before. He was willing to proceed with the discussion of those questions at once, but he had understood that M. Bidault wished to leave at 5 p.m. and that the meeting might therefore be adjourned.

It was agreed to adjourn and to meet on Thursday, June 20, at 11 a.m.

Mr. Bevin suggested that the Deputies meet immediately and go on with their work.

Mr. Byrnes did not consider it necessary to put that motion to the Council since he knew that the Council would agree that the Deputies should go on working. He hoped that the Deputies would be more fortunate in reaching agreements than the Foreign Ministers had been.

M. Bidault stated that he wished to thank his colleagues for their courtesy in taking account of his other engagements. He had asked to be excused on the previous day in order to attend a great national celebration. On this occasion it was neither a national nor a personal one.

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

46. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
47. Not printed. Brackets throughout this document appear in the source text.
48. The Council of Foreign Ministers subsequently agreed to delete Article 66 from the Treaty.
49. Under consideration at this point was C.F.M.(D) (46) 138, June 5, 1946, p. 470, which had been included in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy as Appendix II.
50. Appendix VI of C.F.M.(D) (46) 177 is printed separately as C.F.M.(D) (46) 153, June 11, 1946, p. 481.
51. Appendix IV of C.F.M.(D) (46) 177 is printed separately as C.F.M.(D) (46) 167, June 12, 1946, p. 488.
52. For substance of C.F.M.(46) 116, see footnote 40, p. 528.