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-Fourth Meeting, Palais du Luxembourg, Paris, June 24, 1946, 11:30 a.m.⁸⁵

Paris, June 24, 1946, 11:30 a.m.

secret

Mr. Bevin suggested that the Chairman of the Deputies make a report.

Mr. Jebb stated that the Deputies had discussed the CFM agenda for today. It consisted of:

1. The Italo-Austrian frontier;

2. The Italo-French frontier;

3. Limitations on the Italian Navy; and

4. Certain items in the Balkan treaties.

With respect to the Italo-Austrian frontier the Deputies had considered the report of the Hydro-electric Experts.⁸⁶ The U.S., U.K. and U.S.S.R. Deputies held the view that the report presented evidence that rectification of the frontier in favor of Austria would bring about economic sacrifice to Italy. The Soviet Deputy strongly felt that the Austrian claim should be set aside. The French Deputy believed that no new light had been brought to bear on the question by the report and that the question was a political one. He had therefore reserved his position. The report had not been formally approved by the Deputies but was referred to the CFM with the views of the Deputies.

With respect to the Italo-French frontier the Deputies had examined this question on the understanding that the CFM desired a brief report by the Hydro-electric Experts on the water power supply in the Mont Cenis area.⁸⁷ They had instructed the Experts to examine the question of the guarantee which France should give to Italy to ensure that Italy would have the same water power facilities it enjoyed in the Mont Cenis area at the present time for hydroelectric purposes and that it should also consider the potential hydro-electric possibilities in the area. The Deputies had hoped that a preliminary report might have been drawn up by this morning. They had been advised, however, that the Experts had started their work last evening and continued it this morning but in view of the complexity of the problem certain of the Experts did not believe that it would be possible to draft an exact guarantee concerning the water supply for some time. They believed that they would be able to do so in three or four days.

With respect to limitations on the Italian Navy the Deputies had discussed this matter but had come to no agreement. Therefore they were submitting the report of the Naval Experts to the Ministers.⁸⁸

With reference to the Balkan treaties the Deputies had taken out four items for the Ministers to discuss. These were contained in CFM(46)132.⁸⁹

The Mont Cenis Area

M. Bidault expressed doubt in connection with one point on Mr. Jebb’s report, namely the question of power resources in the Mont Cenis area. The Deputies had agreed that the Hydro-electric Experts should report on the water supply there. The question of the potential power had been discarded and it would not be necessary for the Experts to study this matter any more than they should study potential electric power in Venezia Giulia or Lampedusa.

Mr. Jebb stated that there was some uncertainty among the Deputies on this point and he was not sure what had been decided. Perhaps it would be better to omit this point from the terms of reference.

Mr. Bevin inquired whether the first paragraph of the terms of reference was approved and whether the Committee should limit itself to the question of the guarantee of water supply to Italy.

Mr. Byrnes stated that he did not object and suggested that the Deputies prepare such a guarantee. He wished to dispose of this section of the Deputies’ report since it had been agreed upon that the Mont Cenis area should be ceded to France if certain guarantees were adopted. The French had stated that they would give such guarantees.

M. Bidault stated that he would also agree.

The Austro-Italian Frontier

Mr. Bevin suggested that the CFM take up the matters in the Deputies’ report according to their order. The first one was the Italo-Austrian frontier after which they should discuss the Tenda-Briga area and then the question of guarantees for the Mont Cenis area.

M. Molotov proposed that the CFM adopt a resolution to the effect that the Ministers, having examined the report presented by the Hydro-electric Experts in connection with the Austrian claims for certain minor frontier rectifications in the northeastern part of the Alto-Adige area, cannot recognize the aforementioned claims as minor rectifications to the Austro-Italian frontier as suggested in the memorandum of the Government of Austria of May 30, 1946 (CFM(D)(46)92).⁹⁰

Mr. Byrnes stated that the U.S. Delegation agreed to the proposal submitted by the Soviet Union.

M. Bidault stated that it was a thorny question. It did not represent a minor rectification. The main question appeared to be to permit Austria to have railroad transit rights from the northern to the eastern Tyrol. It was not a small area. M. Bidault believed that it should remain unchanged.

Mr. Bevin stated that the United Kingdom accepted the Soviet proposal. He expressed the hope that Italy and Austria would come to a common sense arrangement regarding railroad traffic. Mr. Byrnes stated that he understood that assurances in this connection had already been given. Italian laws existed granting such guarantees to Austria. If this were not so the CFM should consider measures in order to ensure such guarantees.

Mr. Bevin stated that according to his understanding Italy, under the 1919 treaty, had granted such guarantees. However, one or the other party had annulled them. In any event Italy and Austria should not put obstacles in the way of this railroad traffic for it was to the interests of their economy and earning power to have a free movement of traffic in this area.

Mr. Byrnes stated that the CFM, having agreed on the disposal of the area, might instruct the Committee of Experts to advise it if the guarantees existed. If they did not a clause might be drafted which would assure the fulfillment of what all the Ministers surely desired.

Mr. Bevin suggested that the Deputies might look into this question in order to ensure the free flow of traffic. He commented that one of the greatest assets of the area was its tourist traffic. There should be no impediments to this.

M. Molotov stated that the Soviet Delegation agreed to Mr. Byrnes’ proposal.

Franco-Italian Frontier—Tenda–Briga Area

Mr. Bevin stated that the Ministers had received the report of the Hydro-electric Committee which was a famous one since it had been agreed upon.⁹¹ The French reservation in the report had now been withdrawn.

M. Molotov stated that he wished to draw the Council’s attention to a memorandum of the Italian Government dated May 7⁹² which had not been examined by the Ministers. According to this memorandum the Italian Government had stated that it was willing to come to agreement with the French Government in regard to frontier rectifications so as to make the frontier line coincide with the watershed line. It had also agreed to demilitarize the frontier along the Roya River and in the Mont Chaberton area and to state its views regarding the water resources of the Roya Valley. M. Molotov inquired whether it would not be advisable to examine this document before making a decision on the frontier.

M. Bidault stated that the position of the French Government was sufficiently known to the Ministers and that he saw no reason to repeat it again. The arguments of the Italian Government, as set forth in the memorandum, were not known to him in substance. He was prepared to have a decision on this question postponed once again if the Ministers desired to study this document. The French Delegation was accustomed to such postponements—although this was not a pleasant matter.

Mr. Byrnes stated that the United States Delegation was ready to dispose of the matter at once. He realized that consideration should be given to the Italian views. The United States Delegation had given full consideration to these views. It had considered the report of the Commission sent to the Tenda–Briga area;⁹³ it had studied the communications of the Italian Government since that time. The United States Delegation was of the opinion that the disposition of the area, as had been suggested today, was the best one. This decision was to transfer the territory to France who should give the guarantees contained in the Expert’s report.

M. Bidault expressed his appreciation to Mr. Byrnes and stated that the guarantees to be given by France would be real guarantees.

Mr. Bevin stated that there were obviously two points of view; to settle the matter now or to postpone its settlement.

M. Molotov stated that the document to which he referred had been submitted by the Italian Government on May 7 and had not been discussed by the CFM or by any committee.

M. Bidault stated that he failed to understand. He had before him documents of May 27 and June 17. He inquired whether there was any other document on this question.

Mr. Byrnes referred to the June 17 document as the latest one and one that presented the Italian views six weeks after the document referred to by M. Molotov. The Ministers should believe that the June 17 document really presented the views of the Italian Government.

Mr. Bevin said that he understood that the two official documents circulated by the Secretariat were those of May 27 (CFM(D) (46)84) and June 17 (CFM(D) (46) 114).⁹⁴ Other documents or memoranda that might have been distributed were submitted to the individual governments and not to the CFM. He inquired whether the May 7 document carried any number.

M. Molotov replied that it carried no conference number but that it carried No. 04034 of the Italian Embassy in Paris.

Mr. Byrnes stated that one of the documents received by the United States Delegation was the document referred to by M. Molotov. It was a memorandum sent under cover of a letter from the Italian Embassy. It was not addressed to the Council. There was no date on the memorandum. He continued that he entirely agreed that all the Delegates should consider the Italian views on this question. There was no doubt that the Italian Government opposed this transfer but the Council was obligated to make a decision. He hoped that it would do so. He would regret it if the decision did not comply with the wishes of the Italian Government but the Ministers should take this responsibility and settle the question.

Mr. Bevin stated that the United Kingdom had studied the Tenda–Briga question on the basis of four documents, i.e., (1) the report of the Commission sent there to study the situation on the spot; (2) the very important report of the Hydro-electric Experts; (3) and (4) the documents of May 27 and June 17 setting forth the Italian point of view. The United Kingdom had also studied the French point of view.

M. Molotov stated that all the Ministers recognized that it was a very complicated question. The memorandum of May 7 which was worthy of their attention dealt in part with the Tenda–Briga area. However the Ministers had not studied this memorandum or referred it to any committee. The Soviet Delegation respects the point of view presented by the French Delegation but it could not pass over the fact that this question was very important to Italy. All the electric power in the area before the war was utilized by large industrial enterprises in Italy. M. Molotov stated that he was calling attention to the May 7 document especially because it set forth a compromise which might facilitate the settlement of the question. For this reason the Soviet Delegation believed it advisable to instruct a committee to examine this document.

M. Bidault inquired exactly what document M. Molotov was referring to. Was it the one commencing “all geographers, historians, both Italian as well as foreigners”.

M. Molotov stated that he did not have the full text but only the conclusions.

M. Bidault inquired whether the conclusions started “although it is desired to state the Italian point of view”.

M. Molotov replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Byrnes stated that there was nothing new in the conclusions of the document. The Italian Government realized that there might be justification for certain frontier rectifications and had therefore offered to enter into negotiations with the French Government. After the document had been submitted the Italian Government had sent representatives who had appeared before the Deputies. They had set forth their views orally and had included them in a document eight pages long. He agreed that the Ministers must be careful to obtain the views of the Italian Government. If ever the CFM had gone out of its way to obtain such views it had done so in the present instance. A document had been submitted on May 7 and had been considered by the United States Delegation. On May 28 a new document had been submitted by the Italian Government. A commission had been sent to the territory under dispute to study the situation on the spot. On June 17 another document had been submitted by the Italian Government. It seemed to Mr. Byrnes that the Ministers were right in assuming that the proposals contained in the May 7 document were also contained in subsequent documents. They should go by the latter documents as containing the official views of the Italian Government. There was no need to go back to the May 7 document.

M. Molotov stated that Mr. Byrnes was correct in saying that the Italian Government had presented its views at a later stage. However, as far as he knew the May 7 document was the only one which had been presented which offered a compromise solution. Perhaps a settlement might be reached on this basis and the question should be examined accordingly. For that reason he proposed that the document be examined in order to ascertain whether there were any points of interest in it.

M. Bidault stated that so far as he was concerned he had no objection to making a very full examination of the document because it contained so many untrue factors that the French Delegation had no fear of it. As an example page seven of the document stated that the people of Tenda-Briga did not wish to unite with France. There was only one voice that opposed union. On page eight the total population of the area was given as 3800 inhabitants. With respect to electric power he recalled that the Experts had established that the electric output of the area did not reach one percent of the Italian output. These were the important factors that had raised so much difficulty among the Ministers. M. Bidault was confident that the French interest was a good one. He placed himself in the other Ministers’ hands and said that he had faith in their decision.

Mr. Bevin inquired whether it was the desire of the CFM to defer decision or to come to some conclusion at the present session. From a territorial point of view the British Delegation was not disturbed since it was a question of the transfer of a small population. The British Delegation thought that the hydro-electric report provided a basis for France and Italy to cooperate in an area in which both countries had great economic interests. If the guarantees were given by France to Italy Mr. Bevin was ready to come to a decision on the matter. He had examined the list of documents received by the Committee of Experts. The May 7 memorandum was not included. He had inquired of the British representative on the Committee whether all the arguments and proposals in the May 7 memorandum were known to them when they were drafting the report. From reading the report he was sure that all the pertinent arguments had been included, and that all the representatives on the Committee were well aware of them. Since the document had not been circulated to the CFM the compromise mentioned by M. Molotov had not been officially considered. He personally did not remember what the compromise was.

M. Bidault remarked that the compromise was to leave the entire area to Italy.

Mr. Bevin again inquired what the Ministers desired to do—to consider the matter further or to come to a decision. The French Delegation did not oppose reconsideration. The United States Delegation desired to decide the question now. The Soviet Delegation recommended further consideration.

Mr. Byrnes stated that even if the Ministers overlooked the statements in the more recent documents and examined the May 7 document they would see that there was a compromise. The Italian Government had offered to cede area No. 1. This point had already been decided by the Ministers. The Italians had suggested ceding the hunting grounds. That point had also been decided by the Ministers. The Italians were willing to demilitarize the area marked as No. 3 on the map. The Council had decided to cede area No. 3 to France. The Italians had then said that they would negotiate regarding the Mont Cenis area. The Ministers had gone into this question, guarantees had been promised by France and the matter settled.

With respect to area No. 4 the Italian Government said that it would negotiate with France the question of the utility of the electric power in the area. The CFM had sent a commission to the area which had made a unanimous report. This report had been adopted by the Council. The only compromise mentioned by the Italians referred to area No. 4. The CFM had studied this matter, i.e., the question of electric power and had come to a decision on it. Mr. Byrnes believed that it should stand by its decision. He expressed the hope that it would not postpone action and that it would decide the question today. He inquired whether France had had any negotiations with Italy on the question of electric power in this area.

M. Bidault replied that France had carried on negotiations for six months on the question. If the question of a compromise solution came up he wished to mention that France had negotiated much wider claims with Italy regarding more important population groups than in the Tenda-Briga area.

M. Molotov stated that he did not propose that the question be referred to Italy and France for settlement. Perhaps Mr. Byrnes was correct when he said that the proposal contained in the May 7 memorandum related to an inadequate compromise. That was not the point. The point was that this document had not been examined. For that reason the Ministers should instruct a special committee to give consideration to the views contained in this document. They should not confine their consideration to the views of the Italian Government but should endeavor to find a compromise which would be acceptable to the French Government and one that would not have too an adverse effect on Italy.

M. Bidault suggested that the CFM adjourn until 5:00 p.m. Mr. Byrnes said that before adjourning he wished to suggest that the Council itself consider the memorandum of May 7. He did not wish to set up another commission. Two commissions had already worked on this question and the establishment of a third would not facilitate matters. The question of the Tenda–Briga area must be decided by the CFM and he suggested that it do so this afternoon. The May 7 document proposed the rectifications of areas Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Three of these four areas had been settled. If the Ministers reverted to the May 7 document and established a new committee the entire problem would be opened up again. This would be a step backwards and not forwards. The Deputies had considered this matter for months and had heard all the interested parties. They had reported accordingly to the Ministers. It would not help to appoint another committee. If the Deputies were unable to find a compromise in their months of work there was no reason to believe that such a compromise could be found by a committee which would work on this problem for two or three days. If it was so desired and if the May 7 document was so important he was willing to study it. This question must be settled eventually and he suggested that it be done this afternoon. He proposed that the Ministers should read the May 7 document, see what was in it and discuss the matter when they met.

M. Molotov inquired why the matter had to be settled today and not in the next few days after the proposal had been examined.

Mr. Byrnes again suggested that M. Molotov study the document during the recess and discuss it at the afternoon session with a view to reaching agreement.

M. Molotov stated that he had no objection to studying the document or to referring it to a committee. However some more time would be needed for this.

Mr. Bevin suggested that the Deputies study the document and report back to the CFM whether there were any arguments contained in it which it had not already considered.

Mr. Byrnes stated that he did not agree. He did not wish to refer back to the Deputies a document which they had received last May.

Mr. Bevin suggested that the discussion be resumed at 5:00 p.m.

85. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.

86. At their 57th Meeting, May 30, 1946, the Deputies heard statements by the Austrian Foreign Minister, Karl Gruber, and by the Italian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Nicolo Carandini, on the subject of the rectification of the Austro-Italian frontier in the South Tyrol. At their 66th Meeting, June 7, 1946, the Deputies decided to establish a Committee of Hyro-Electric Experts to consider the hydro-electric questions raised by the request by Austria for a rectification of the Austro-Italian frontier. The Committee’s Report, designated C.F.M. (46) 120, June 20, 1946, is printed on p. 563. In telegram 2782, Delsec 561, June 8, from Paris, Dunn reported as follows on the discussion by the Deputies regarding the Austrian territorial claims:

    “Austrian claim to Pusterthal and Brixen discussed by Deputies June 7. No decision was taken on (1) whether Austrian claim could be considered as minor rectification within September CFM decision, or (2) merits of the claim. French Deputy called attention to Gruber’s statement before CFM May 30 in which he said Austria, while making claim now only to part of South Tyrol in accordance with CFM decision, would later raise question on whole South Tyrol before appropriate international body. Couve said that since CFM had task of establishing conditions of peace in Europe, solution of question adopted by CFM should be final. Couve also said decision on Austrian claim should be based not on whether it is ‘minor rectification’ but on whether Four Powers consider it desirable to give Austria something; he said Austria should be given Eisackthal and Pusterthal, perhaps also Brixen, or else nothing at all, and settlement should be final. Jebb gave British view that claim including Brixen could not be considered as minor rectification, intimating that he regarded claim excluding Brixen as within definition. I said US had not yet come to any conclusion on that point. Gusev did not think Austrian claim was for minor rectification but was willing to have it studied on its merits.” (740.00119 Council/6–846)

87. At their 80th Meeting, June 23, 1946, the Deputies instructed the Committee of Hyro-Electric Experts to submit a report on the hydro-electric problems raised by the Mont Cenis question.
88. C.F.M. (46) 121, June 22, 1946, p. 584.
89. C.F.M. (46) 132, June 23, 1946, not printed, was a Report by the Deputies on a suggested agenda for the Council. The items suggested, which were concerned with the draft peace treaties with Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, were as follows: 1) clauses relating to the Danube in the draft Rumanian treaty; 2) the personal injuries provisions of the Rumanian treaty; 3) the mixed arbitral tribunal provision of the Rumania treaty; 4) a provision regarding the general limitations on the Hungarian Air Force.
90. Ante, p. 454.
91. The reference here is to C.F.M. (D) (46) 163, June 11, 1946, p. 483.
92. Not found.
93. Reference here is to C.F.M. (46) 56, May 11, 1946, p. 353.
94. C.F.M.(D) (46) 84, May 27, 1946, not printed, was the text of a statement by Marquis Antonio Meli Lupi di Soragna, the Italian Ambassador in France, to the Deputies at their meeting on May 27, 1946. Ambassador di Soragna’s statement set forth the views of the Italian Government on the Report of the Commission of Experts (C.F.M. (46) 56, May 11, 1946, p. 353) on the question of the rectification of the Franco-Italian frontier in the Upper Valley of the Roya. The Deputies, at their 52nd Meeting, May 16, 1946, had decided to invite the Italian Government to send a representative to make such a statement in pursuance of the views of the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers at its 16th Meeting, May 14, 1946; see the United States Delegation Record of that Council meeting, p. 368. C.F.M.(D) (46) 114, June 19, 1946, not printed, was the text of a note from the Italian Embassy in Paris to the Council of Foreign Ministers, dated June 17, 1946, which set forth the views of the Italian Government with regard to the other rectifications in the Franco-Italian frontier proposed by the French Government.