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-Sixth Meeting, Palais du Luxembourg, Paris, June 25, 1946, 4:30 p.m.¹²

Paris, June 25, 1946, 4:30 p.m.

secret

Agenda and Procedure

Mr. Byrnes opened the meeting and said that it was his understanding that the Deputies had agreed that morning on a list of the outstanding questions connected with the Italian Treaty which were before the Council.¹³ The Deputies had not made a recommendation concerning the order in which these questions were to be taken up. Were there any suggestions on that point? If not, they would be taken in the order in which they appeared on the list drawn up by the Deputies. The first question was the Dodecanese.

M. Molotov indicated that he did not think that the question of the order of taking up the items had been decided.

Mr. Byrnes said that he thought he had heard someone say “Ya soglasen”.

M. Molotov said it was his understanding that the Deputies had drawn up a list. He noted that the question of the Danube was missing from that list.

Mr. Byrnes gave as the reason for that that the Council had decided to take up first the outstanding points of the Italian Treaty. The Deputies had listed those points. When they had been considered, the outstanding questions of the Rumanian Treaty would then be taken up.

M. Molotov thought that, since the Council had been discussing questions pertaining to the Italian Treaty for ten days and had only on the previous day dealt with questions connected with the other peace treaties, it would be a good thing to ascertain which were the outstanding questions remaining with respect to those other treaties.

Mr. Byrnes said that at the previous meeting of the Council the Deputies had been asked to prepare a list of outstanding questions on the Italian Treaty. If it was desired, it would be in order to ask them to prepare at their next meeting a list of the outstanding questions on the other treaties. He did not think that there should be any misunderstanding with respect to the instructions which had been given to the Deputies. The only question concerned the order in which the listed points on the Italian Treaty were to be considered. He had said, if there was no proposal to discuss any particular question out of the order on the list before him, he would go through the questions in the order presented. The first question on the list was the Dodecanese.

M. Molotov said that he was advised by his Deputy that the Deputies had only drawn up a list of questions. They had established no order and suggested no order to the Ministers. With respect to the questions connected with the Italian Treaty the Soviet Delegation suggested taking up the economic questions first. It was proposed that the Council take up the question of the Danube, which did not relate to the Italian Treaty but which had been discussed the day before.

Mr. Byrnes said that he had stated a few moments before that it was for the Ministers to decide on the order of taking up the questions. He did not think it was in order to consider a question not connected with the Italian Treaty, since at the previous meeting it had been decided to consider at this meeting questions connected with the Italian Treaty. M. Molotov had asked that the problem of general economic relations be considered first. Was there any objection to that?

Mr. Bevin remarked that he thought it would cause great public consternation if the Council decided the question of the Dodecanese. It had become so farcical that he did not care which question was taken up first.

Mr. Byrnes said that if there was no objection they would begin with the question of general economic relations.

M. Molotov asked when the question of the Danube would be discussed.

Mr. Byrnes said that it would be discussed after the Council discussed the items connected with the Italian Treaty which had been listed by the Deputies on the basis of the Council’s decision of the day before which had been taken on a motion of Mr. Bevin. After that, they could take up the Rumanian and other treaties. If any delegation wished to take up any particular point, the Chairman would put the question to the Council. The Council, of course, was the master of its own agenda.

M. Molotov wished to ask that M. Vyshinsky be heard, since he could report what had taken place at the meeting of the Deputies.

M. Vyshinsky stated that, contrary to its usual procedure, the Council had not begun its present meeting with a report of the Deputies. At their meeting in the morning the Deputies had taken up the question of whether it was necessary to draw up an agenda for the meeting of the Ministers. Since the Foreign Ministers knew well what questions were outstanding and could take up any of them at their own choice, it was decided by the Deputies not to draw up any agenda for the Council but merely to draw attention to the outstanding questions connected with the Italian Treaty, bearing in mind the fact that the outstanding questions in the Rumanian, Bulgarian and Hungarian Treaties had already been ascertained and presented to the Council the day before. Furthermore, in establishing this list of questions on Italy, the Deputies had decided that there was no need to submit a list formally to the Council. They had agreed that each Deputy would report to his own Minister, and the Council itself would be able to establish its own agenda. At the Deputies’ meeting consideration had also been given to fifteen other questions. Some of these had been settled by the Deputies themselves; others had been directed into other channels.

M. Molotov said that, of the economic questions outstanding, he would suggest beginning with compensation for damage to United Nations property, and following with Italian assets in the territory of the Allied and Associated Powers, then the question of compensation for expropriated property, and finally any other economic questions.

Mr. Byrnes said that he had proposed taking up the questions in the order in which they appeared on the list prepared by the Deputies. He had heard no objection to that procedure and had suggested the Dodecanese as the first topic. Then M. Molotov had suggested that they start with the question of general economic relations. Later M. Molotov had proposed that they begin on the question of compensation for damaged property, then take up the question of Italian assets abroad, and then compensation for expropriated property. Were there any other suggestions or any objections to this procedure?

M. Molotov said he had a suggestion to make on the question of the Italian colonies, which was under consideration by a special committee. He asked that the examination of this question be expedited.

Mr. Byrnes said that he would like to know if any member of that committee was present and could report whether it had ever met.

Mr. Bevin understood that it was the Soviet representative who had put off the committee’s meetings.

Mr. Byrnes said that he was informed by the U.S. Representative that the Committee had never met, although the United States Delegation had been hoping that it would meet.

It was then agreed that the Special Committee on Italian Colonies should meet at 10:00 a.m. the next day.

M. Vyshinsky said that there seemed to be some misunderstanding. The Deputies had discussed the question of how to start the work of the Colonial Committee. It was suggested on Friday or Saturday that the Committee meet on Monday. He had then proposed that the Committee meet on Tuesday because specific proposals would not be ready until then. It was his understanding that Mr. Jebb had undertaken to submit a proposal. Perhaps this was a misunderstanding on his part.

Mr. Byrnes said that the American Representative on the Committee had not seen any proposal or heard anything about a meeting but was willing to meet at 10:00 o’clock the next morning. There was no need of post-mortems on the subject.

Compensation for Loss of or Damage to United Nations Property in Italy¹⁴

Mr. Byrnes proposed that the Council return to the first item suggested for consideration, compensation for damage to United Nations property in Italy. This question had been discussed at a previous meeting at some length. Did any delegation have a statement to make?

Mr. Bevin said that he accepted the American proposal.

M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation had already made a proposal to the effect that compensation should be partial and that on the basis of that principle a more concrete text should be worked out. Provided there was agreement on the subject in principle, the Council could instruct the Deputies or the experts to work out the language.

Mr. Bevin asked what article was being discussed.

Mr. Byrnes said that it was the article on United Nations property, paragraph 2 of Part II of Appendix III of the Draft Treaty for Italy. The document in question was CFM(D) (46)133.

M. Molotov said that he should like to propose the text: “Italy admits the necessity of compensating for the property of the United Nations or of their nationals which had been lost or damaged in Italy in the course of the war. However, taking into account the fact that Italy was the first of the Axis Powers to break with Germany and to place itself on the side of the United Nations, and taking into account the losses which Italy had suffered on its own territory in the war against Germany, it is found that such compensation should be partial.”

M. Bidault said that he was not going to repeat what he had said several days ago when he had stated the French claims and had drawn attention to the fact that they were very moderate. France was the only country which had stated any definite figures. He had thought it necessary to stress that point again.

Mr. Byrnes said that, so far as the United States was concerned, its position was set forth on pages 5 and 6 of the document in question. He believed this to be a good solution and continued to adhere to it. Did the U.K. Delegation support the U.S. Delegation’s proposal?

Mr. Bevin said that when he had made his previous remark he had thought that Mr. Byrnes was referring to an entirely different article. He had got a bit mixed up on the agenda. However, having looked over the U.S. proposal on the question at hand, he was willing to accept it.

Mr. Byrnes stated that the Soviet proposal differed from that of the other three delegations, and since there was no agreement they might as well proceed to the next question.

M. Molotov asked whether they could not adopt a decision in principle that compensation should be made by Italy within the limit of one-third of the damage suffered. In making that suggestion he had in mind the fact that in the settlement of the reparation question they had proceeded on the basis not of full compensation but of minimum compensation.

Mr. Bevin said that, on the question before them, it was a matter of compensation in lire. This money would be put back into the Italian economy and would help Italy. After all, the United Kingdom was making scarcely any claims against Italy. He thought that the U.S. proposal was a good one.

Mr. Byrnes said that he had fully expressed the views of the United States Delegation at a previous meeting. The American proposal provided for payment in lire. These payments would be made not to the governments concerned but to the individuals who had suffered loss. The United States adhered to its position, and it was useless to enlarge on the statement made previously. Since there was no agreement on the item, they should proceed to the next question.

Italian Property in the Territory of the Allied and Associated Powers

Mr. Byrnes said that the next item on the agenda was Article 71 of the Italian Draft Treaty which dealt with Italian assets in the territory of the Allied and Associated Powers.¹⁵ The United States had stated its position on this matter when it had been discussed at an earlier meeting. It was unreasonable to expect an Allied country which had taken an active part in the war to surrender Italian assets within its jurisdiction to satisfy the claims of other countries when it had unsatisfied claims of its own. The United States proposal provided also that all Italian property or the proceeds thereof in excess of the amount of such claims should be returned to Italy. He thought that the record of the United States during the war, in the matter of finance and in other matters, justified confidence that every dollar not used to satisfy claims would be returned to Italy. He knew that Italy had no fears on that subject.

M. Molotov thought that it would be easy to reach agreement on this question if a uniform wording were suggested. The U.S. proposal provided that the assets be used to satisfy war claims. The British draft mentioned using them in any way each Allied Government might decide. He wondered if those two proposals meant the same thing. He thought that perhaps the matter might be settled if there were an agreed text. Perhaps it might be stated that the assets might be used to pay reparation or debts.

Mr. Bevin said that it seemed to him that the problem had two different facets. The U.S. proposal referred only to war claims, but the United Kingdom had certain Italian commercial debts. The alternative language proposed by the Soviet Delegation might meet the situation. It would allow each country to decide in which way it would use the assets.

M. Bidault said that the suggested text might well open up a road to agreement, but there should be a precise text, and the exact meaning of the words “Italian assets” should be clarified. Furthermore, the whole of the economic clauses under consideration at the moment could hardly be treated independently one after the other.

Mr. Bevin asked the U.S. Delegation to explain the reference in its proposal that the assets should be used to cover war claims. Was it intended to keep pre-war debts alive to be settled without utilizing these assets? If so, it seemed to him that they should try to arrive at a formula which would provide that the assets could be used to meet war claims and after that to meet pre-war debts insofar as possible. This would be a combination of the two proposals.

Mr. Byrnes said that, as he construed the language of paragraph 1 of the U.S. proposal, use of Italian assets would be limited to the satisfaction of claims arising out of the war. He understood from the statement made by Mr. Bevin that the British Government wished to satisfy, in addition to war claims, debts owed by Italy to the British Government or to British nationals, and that these debts were incurred in the period immediately preceding the war. If it was desired to take care of that situation, the language of the U.S. proposal would have to be amended. As a matter of fact, this whole question was just a matter of recognizing what had already been done. Every one of the Allied states which had had Italian property within its jurisdiction when Italy entered the war had taken over that property. If at that time Italy was indebted to an Allied state, it would be most unreasonable to think that that state would now surrender to Italy the property which had been sequestrated and thus lose the chance of being paid for the debts owed by Italy. It was known to all that there was no country which would not protect itself and satisfy those debts out of the Italian assets which were confiscated as the result of the war. There was really nothing much that the Council of Foreign Ministers could do about it.

Mr. Bevin stated that at an earlier meeting it had been agreed in principle that the Italian assets should be retained by each Allied state concerned. Why should they not leave it at that, and leave the rest to be settled by Italy and those Allied states?

Mr. Byrnes thought that it was important to retain the language of the U.S. proposal which said that all Italian property and the proceeds thereof in excess of the amount used to satisfy claims should be returned. He was willing to suggest an amendment of the U.S. proposal which would cover the point made by Mr. Bevin regarding debts. Where there was a reference to “war claims”, the word “war” could be stricken out and after the word “claims” the phrase “and those of its nationals against Italy or its nationals” could be inserted.

Mr. Bevin said that that would make it clearer and would meet the British position. If there was general agreement on something of that sort, he would like to see the text before giving final approval.

Mr. Byrnes asked M. Molotov if he would find the text of the U.S. proposal so amended acceptable.

M. Molotov thought that it could be accepted in principle and be referred to the Economic Committee for drafting.

Compensation for Expropriated Property

Mr. Byrnes said that the next item came under the heading of general economic relations. It concSrned just compensation for United Nations property which might be expropriated (Part II of Appendix IV of the Italian Draft Treaty, document CFM(D) (46) 167).¹⁶

M. Molotov stated that it was the proposal of the Soviet Delegation that the Council should not adopt any decision on this question and should delete the whole item from the Treaty. It would be more normal and practical to settle such questions by bilateral agreements.

Mr. Bevin pointed out that this clause would be in effect for only 18 months, thus giving time to negotiate bilateral treaties which would re-establish normal relations with Italy. He thought it would be very wise to put the U.S. proposal into the Treaty. It did not tie up Italy for all time. The U.K. Delegation had proposed a 3-year time limit but had agreed to M. Molotov’s proposal for an 18 month period. He thought that M. Molotov should accordingly agree to the inclusion of this provision in the Treaty. It would allow 18 months to prepare the way for the resumption of normal economic relations. Meanwhile this clause would be of advantage to Italy. He hoped that M. Molotov could agree to it.

M. Molotov said that he had just agreed to another item which had been previously discussed. On the point now before them he thought that it would be difficult to find a formula satisfactory to everybody. In his view it would be better to leave it for settlement through bilateral agreements. Otherwise they would spend too much time trying to find language which would be satisfactory to all four delegations and which would at the same time not be inconsistent with the sovereignty of Italy.

Mr. Byrnes said that he thought there should be such a clause in the Treaty. He had hoped that it would be accepted. However, in view of the strong opposition on the part of the Soviet Delegation, he was willing to delete it. In order to make a contribution to reaching agreement he was willing to give up his position on the point.

M. Molotov said, “Very good”.

Compensation for Personal Injuries

Mr. Byrnes said that, in view of the concession he had just made, he hoped that his friend would agree to delete the next item, the proposal on compensation for personal injuries, Article 66 of the Draft Treaty.¹⁷ M. Molotov had agreed to delete a similar provision from the Rumanian Treaty. Would he do the same in regard to the Italian Treaty?

Mr. Byrnes then said that he wished to apologize to Mr. Bevin and M. Bidault for his hasty action on the previous point. He had assumed, whenever M. Molotov said “Very good”, that the question was settled.

M. Molotov said that he agreed to the proposal to delete the article on personal injuries from the Italian Treaty as well.

Mr. Byrnes said, “Very good”.

Mr. Bevin asked, with respect to the previous question, was it assumed that if Mr. Byrnes and M. Molotov were in agreement, the French and British Delegations also agreed?

Mr. Byrnes said that he was exercising his privilege and following the example which Mr. Bevin had set a few days ago. The proposal which Mr. Bevin had been supporting was an American proposal and he (Mr. Byrnes) withdrew it.

The Dodecanese

Mr. Byrnes said that since the Council had so easily disposed of the previous item he knew they would have no trouble with the next question, the Dodecanese. He hoped that they really could make some dispensation of that question. That would leave only two important questions still outstanding. The Dodecanese had been discussed a few days before in a private conversation. He had received the impression that all delegations were agreed on the disposition of the islands but had not agreed on a formula. He wondered if it could be discussed now.

M. Molotov said that he would like to circulate a formula in writing but that it was not yet ready for circulation. He was not prepared to discuss the matter at the moment.

Mixed Arbitral Tribunals

Mr. Byrnes asked whether the French Delegation was interested in making a suggestion on the next item to be considered.

M. Molotov said that, unless M. Bidault was about to make a proposal, he had one to make. The question of arbitration was on the agenda of the Council. He thought it would be proper to refer this question to the Deputies for examination on the understanding that it would be referred back to the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Byrnes said that the only proposal before them was a British proposal.

M. Molotov said that there was also an earlier proposal of the Soviet Delegation.

It was agreed that the Deputies should give further consideration to this question and make a report to the Council.

Outstanding Questions Connected With the Peace Treaties

M. Molotov suggested that the Deputies meet the next morning and draw up a list of questions to be considered by the Council. These questions would be the outstanding points not only on the Italian Treaty but also on the Rumanian and other treaties. Thus the Council would have before it a full picture.

All delegations agreed.

Franco-Italian Frontier

Mr. Bevin asked whether the Council was going to take up the question of Tenda and Briga at this time.

M. Bidault was quite willing to do so if it could be done in 5 minutes.

Mr. Byrnes said that they could then proceed to discuss the question.

M. Molotov suggested that the meeting be adjourned. The Ministers could then have some respite from their labors.

M. Bidault said that the French Delegation had always been liberal in this regard even at its own expense, although he did not think that, on this particular point, it would be at its own expense.

M. Molotov said that it would not.

M. Bidault said that he would like to ask another favor of his colleagues. On the next day the Government over which he had the honor to preside would present itself to the Constituent Assembly of France, and he would be unable at the same time to fulfill his role of Chairman of the Council of Foreign Ministers. He suggested that the Council either meet at 9:00 p.m. or meet during the day with the French Deputy replacing him, in which case the chairmanship would go to the next in line, Mr. Bevin. He repeated that his absence would be quite involuntary and asked his colleagues to choose between the two alternatives he had proposed.

Mr. Byrnes said that, in his opinion, in view of M. Bidault’s program for the next day it would be unfair to ask him to come to a meeting at night. It would be satisfactory to the U.S. Delegation if the French Deputy represented M. Bidault.

All delegations agreed to M. Bidault’s second alternative proposal.

M. Bidault thanked his colleagues for the honor given to his Deputy and for the relief given to him.

Mr. Byrnes wished to ask the Representative of the Soviet Government a question in connection with the statements which he had made concerning the Franco-Italian frontier. He did not think that M. Molotov objected to the position of the other members of the Council on this point and wondered whether he would mind discussing it immediately, in order that the President of France might have something to present to his Government the next day and would not mind being absent from the Council.

M. Molotov said that, if it was not too late, he would state his views at one of their meetings in the near future.

The meeting of the Deputies for the next day was fixed at 11:30 a.m., and the meeting of the Foreign Ministers at 4:00 p.m.

The meeting adjourned at 6:30.

12. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
13. The report by the Deputies on the outstanding questions of the draft peace treaty with Italy was circulated to the Council as document C.F.M. (46) 140, June 25, 1946. This document consisted of a list of the outstanding questions as follows: Dodecanese (Art. 12); Italo-Yugoslav frontier and Port of Trieste (Art. 4 and Appendix VII); Personal Injuries (Art. 66); Reparations (Appendix I); United Nations property in Italy: Compensation (Appendix III, Part II, paragraph 2); Italian property in the territory of Allied and Associated Powers (Art. 71); General Economic Relations: Expropriation (Appendix IV, Part II); Franco-Italian frontier: Rectification No. 4 (Tenda and Briga) (Art. 2); Italian Navy; Italian Colonies (Art. 17).
14. Under consideration at this point was the Report of the Committee of Economic Experts on Italy regarding United Nations’ property in Italy, C.F.M.(D) (46) 133, June 5, 1946, p. 463. This Report was included as Appendix III to C.F.M.(D) (46) 177, the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy.
15. The text of article 71 of C.F.M.(D) (46) 177 is given in footnote 26, p. 517.
16. Ante, p. 488.
17. Not printed.