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

C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2080: CFM Minutes

United States Delegation Minutes, Council of Foreign Ministers, Third Session, First Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 1946, 3:30 p.m.¹

New York, November 4, 1946, 3:30 p.m. to 7:50 p.m.

secret
USDEL (CFM) (46) (NY) 1st Meeting

Secretary Byrnes: Gentlemen of the Council, as the representative of the United States I extend a hearty welcome to you. We started the consideration of the peace treaties in London; we went to Moscow and we spent quite a long while in Paris. Now I hope that we will be able to wind up in the United States the consideration of these treaties.

We have all declared ourselves in favor of unanimity in this Council, and I hope that here we may be able to achieve that unanimity. I have nothing more to add to my expression of welcome to each and every one of you.

Mr. Molotov: I think that we all are grateful for the welcome and hospitality extended to us. I believe I express our general desire if I ask Mr. Byrnes to open our meeting.

Mr. Bevin: I would like strongly to support Mr. Molotov’s request and also to thank the United States Government and Mr. Byrnes for the welcome extended to us.

M. Couve de Murville: I would like to extend my thanks, Mr. Chairman, for the hospitality extended to us in New York, and I would like to express to the three Foreign Ministers the sincere regrets of Mr. Bidault who has been prevented by circumstances from attending this opening session of the C.F.M. in New York. Mr. Bidault has asked me to say that he does not wish his absence to impede in any way the work of the Council.

Secretary Byrnes: I know that I express the views of my colleagues in saying we regret the absence of Mr. Bidault, but I am very happy that he had the good judgment to designate M. Couve de Murville as his representative.

I shall, in accordance with the expression of my colleagues, open the meeting, with the understanding of course that we shall follow the procedure which has heretofore existed; that is, that the chairmanship shall rotate each day.

I suggest to the Council that we take the recommendations of the Paris Conference as to the Italian Treaty and consider them in the order in which they appear in the treaty, and that when we reach any recommendattion on which we fail to reach agreement, we pass it and proceed with the consideration of the next recommendation.² Is there objection to following that course?

(No objections offered.)

Turning to the Italian Treaty, according to a memorandum I have before me, there is no recommendation that was not agreed to insofar as the Preamble is concerned. I suggest that when the recommendations of the Conference were agreed to by the four of us, it will not be necessary for us to consider such agreed articles.

Articles 3, 4, 16

The first unagreed recommendation appears in connection with Article III.³ That is the language proposed by the U.S., U.K. and French delegations as to the frontier between Italy and Yugoslavia. It is just one paragraph. With respect to that frontier, the Soviet delegation presented wording which differed from the language presented by the other three Governments.⁴ I understand that the proposal of the U.S., U.K., and French delegations and the proposal of the Soviet delegation were not discussed in the Conference. There is no recommendation even though we have these two proposals. Therefore, I ask my colleagues do they desire to consider these proposals or would they prefer to consider proposals on which there was a Conference recommendation.

Mr. Molotov: My impression is that it was decided at the Paris Conference to give an opportunity to Yugoslavia to set forth its views on this question before a final decision was made. In addition a decision was also adopted at the Paris Conference to give a hearing to Italy on this question as well as on certain other questions. It seems to me that Article III falls within the category of questions on which the views of Yugoslavia and those of Italy should be heard.

Secretary Byrnes: At the Paris Conference it was agreed that if the Yugoslav delegation desired to present further views on any question affecting the Trieste proposal, the opportunity would be given to the Yugoslav delegation to appear before us and the same opportunity would also be given to Italy. The agreement is shown on page 13⁵ of the record of recommendations. It was added to the French proposal concerning the free territory. It appears under the heading “Provisional Government.”

I received a communication this afternoon from the Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia,⁶ reading as follows:

“With reference to the session of the Council of Foreign Ministers in New York, I have the honor to inform you that the Yugoslav delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations under my chairmanship has been authorized by the Government of Yugoslavia to represent my country before the Council and place myself at your disposal for the purpose of facilitating the finding of solutions on questions relating to the peace with Italy which remained unsettled in Paris.

“The Yugoslav Government is prepared to do everything in order to assist in the carrying out of the important tasks which confront the Council of Foreign Ministers.

“With expressions of the highest regard,”

I must say that my understanding was that the request for another hearing on the part of the representative of Yugoslavia and a representative of Italy was confined to the proposal to which an amendment was offered, namely, the French proposal for the establishment of the free territory and the provisional government and other matters set forth in the French proposal. I did not understand that we should have another hearing on all of the outstanding questions affecting Italy and Yugoslavia.

I must recall that we have been quite liberal. We heard both parties in London on the question of the frontier and there were extensive hearings before the Commission in Paris. In addition, the representatives of both Governments again had an opportunity to be heard before the Plenary Sessions. This was not true as to the statute, which was proposed only at the Paris Conference. My understanding was that a request for an additional hearing applied only to the statute.

I call your attention to the foregoing because the letter I have received states that the Foreign Minister will place himself at our disposal for the purpose of facilitating the finding of solutions on questions relating to the peace with Italy which remained unsettled in Paris.

Mr. Molotov: I have before me the text of the recommendations. The text on page [article?] 16 (part IV) reads as follows:

“The Commission recommends that the Council of Foreign Ministers gives an opportunity to a representative of Yugoslavia to present his views before final decision is taken.”

The same recommendation is also made by the Commission with regard to Italy, namely, that Italy likewise be given an opportunity to be heard by the Council of Foreign Ministers. This recommendation applies to Article 16 and, as I understand it, this means that the Yugoslav Government shall be given opportunity to set forth its views on Article 16 but not on all the Articles of the treaty. The same applies to Italy, which should also be given opportunity to set forth its views on Article 16. Article 16 contains the statute of Trieste and also deals with the free territory. I believe, as far as this Article is concerned, that Yugoslavia should be given an opportunity to state any views in addition to those set forth in the Paris Conference.

I should like to sum up what I have just said and to make a suggestion. I believe that in accordance with the recommendation of the Paris Conference we should give a hearing to the Yugoslav Delegation on Article 16, which deals with the question of the frontiers of the free territory as well as with the statute for Trieste. The question of the frontier of the free territory is linked up with the question of the Italo-Yugoslav boundary, which is dealt with in Article 3 and is also closely connected with Article 4, which deals with the frontiers of the free territory of Trieste. Therefore, I think we should hear the views of Yugoslavia on Article 16, and consequently on Articles 3 and 4. We should hear the views of Yugoslavia as well as those of Italy. I should like to suggest moreover that after hearing Yugoslavia and Italy in the Council of Foreign Ministers we instruct our deputies to consider together with the representatives of Yugoslavia any concrete proposals the Yugoslavs may make in this connection.

I draw distinction between Yugoslavia and Italy because Italy is a vanquished enemy whereas Yugoslavia is an Allied country. This shade of distinction is reflected in the recommendation of the Paris Conference concerning Part IV, which states that the Commission recommends that the Council of Foreign Ministers gives an opportunity to the representatives of Yugoslavia to present their views before the Council, whereas the Commission likewise recommends that the representative of Italy be heard by the Council of Foreign Ministers. It would be the proper course for us to take if we, after hearing a representative of Yugoslavia and a representative of Italy, were to instruct our deputies to give a more detailed consideration and more detailed hearing to the representative of Yugoslavia in a meeting of the deputies where the representative of Yugoslavia would be able to set forth at length his views and to make concrete proposals which could be discussed with the participation of the Yugoslav representative.

Secretary Byrnes: I must say, Mr. Molotov, that I do not think that we can accept that view of the meaning of Part IV. The recommendation of the Commission is to the effect that the Yugoslav representative may present his views, but it does not say that he should be heard or that any of us need listen to him. As to the representative of Italy it says that he should be heard, which means we would have to listen to him.

I accept the first part of Mr. Molotov’s suggestion. I think we should be liberal about these things. If he wishes a representative of Yugoslavia and Italy to be heard on Article 16, I have no objection.

But, as to the second part of Mr. Molotov’s proposal, I really cannot agree to it. If, after we hear the Yugoslav we refer the matter to the deputies, we will be right back where we were at London and Paris last April. We have passed that point. We have a recommendation from the Conference, and after we have heard the Yugoslavs and Italians I think the question ought to be considered by the Council itself.

Mr. Bevin: It is not clear to me what has been proposed or what is the implication. I understood that the decision to hear Yugoslavia and Italy was connected with the French proposal. If we accept Mr. Molotov’s proposal, then we are reopening the whole question of the frontier, which we decided in London,^* of the French line and of everything else and going back to where we began before we agreed to the international territory. Do I take it that our original decision to establish this line and the free territory still stands? Perhaps we could arrive at the answer to that question before we make up our minds as to what to do.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation will explain its views on this question as far as the substance is concerned at a later stage. But now, I should like to suggest only the procedure which should be followed in the consideration of certain questions. It is significant that the Paris Conference, in its recommendations, singled out only one question, that which relates to Article 16. With regard to this Article, it is stated that “the views of Yugoslavia and Italy should be heard.” I assume that this decision was taken by the Conference in view of the fact that a complex and disputable question is involved in Article 16. I do not wish to enter into an argument as to the difference in the language of the recommendation with regard to Yugoslavia and Italy. In my view, this is a second-rate question. But apart from this fact, we should not overlook the difference in the position of Yugoslavia and Italy.

Yugoslavia is an Allied country whereas Italy has not yet become an Allied country, and therefore, it will be quite legitimate for us rightfully to draw a distinction between these two countries in the final examination of this controversial issue. The Soviet Delegation believes, therefore, that it was quite proper that the Conference at Paris singled out Part IV, Article 16, as an exceptional case which we should consider in accordance with the procedure I have suggested. The Soviet Delegation believes that the observations made in Part IV apply to Article 16, and that Yugoslavia and Italy should be heard only on this Article.

Everybody knows that these complex and difficult questions would develop and it is quite natural that the Paris Conference in view of this singled out this question and provided for an opportunity to be given to representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy to explain their views on this question. The proposal made by the Soviet Delegation is in accordance with the interests of our work, and I suggest that Yugoslavia and Italy should be heard because it is a serious issue which should be examined at length and in a detailed form. We have a lot of other work to do here. Therefore it should be the business of our deputies who should, together with the representatives of Yugoslavia consider Article 16 which deals with the frontiers and with the Yugoslavian boundaries as well as with the statute of the Free Territory of Trieste. It goes without saying that hearing does not mean agreeing. After hearing, everyone may hold his own views as before, but once we decided to hear the two representatives of the countries in question, they should be heard and the question considered in accordance with this decision. It seems to me that the suggestion made by the Soviet Delegation corresponds to the letter and the sense of the Paris Conference.

M. Couve de Murville: I am wondering whether we could not simplify the recommendations made at the Paris Conference. The minutes indicate that we should hear the Yugoslavia representative and then the Italian representative. We could then have general discussions at this Council on the subject and if there is any difficulty here to agree, if we find that there are complementary questions that should be studied, we could refer them to the deputies.

Mr. Molotov: I have no objection to this.

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, I do want to know what I am agreeing to. If Yugoslavs and Italians are called into this room before the Council of Foreign Ministers, what are they to be heard on? Are they to be heard on the whole question which was decided by the CFM and which was voted upon in the Conference? I would like to know what questions are going to be discussed. As I read the minutes of the record, it seems to me that the question is limited. It we are to hear the Yugoslavs and Italians on the whole question of the frontiers, the question of the statutes and everything else, we are right back at the beginning. If we can be frank with one another—exactly what is it we are trying to do?

Secretary Byrnes: The view of the U.S. Delegation is that after the conclusion of the deliberations of the Conference, and upon the consideration of its recommendations, the State signatories to the terms of the Armistice will draw up the final texts of the treaties. We have now reached the stage of considering the recommendations of the Paris Peace Conference. When we look at the record of the Conference, we find that the Commission recommended as a part of the French proposal that the Council give an opportunity to both sides to present their views before a decision is reached. That recommendation of the Commission, which was adopted by a two-thirds vote, was subsequently adopted by a two-thirds vote in plenary session. Therefore, the question before us is the adoption of that recommendation. I have stated I have no objection to the request of Mr. Molotov that the representatives of the two Governments be allowed an opportunity to present their views on this recommendation of the Commission which was subsequently adopted by the plenary session. When they have presented their views, I submit that the Council, in accordance with the Moscow agreement, should proceed to act upon the recommendation, but I would not want to agree to the submission of the question to the deputies to work on. Proposals might be submitted which would not be in accord with the recommendation of the Paris Peace Conference. That is the question before us.

However, there are two questions involved, and the first is whether or not we proceed now to invite representatives of the two Governments to appear in accordance with the recommendation. Then it would be for the Council to determine the action that it would take after hearing the representatives of the two Governments. Is there objection to inviting them to appear and present their views on Article 16?

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, really, as I read this document, it seems to me that we should invite them specifically to state their views on the French resolution. I want to be clear on this point. This was a resolution put forward by the French Government. Let me ask again what you think we can do. I never understood that we should interview them again on the whole question.

The record refers to paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of Article 16 and the French resolution deals with the statute. But there is nothing in the records of the English text which states that the question of the frontier should be reopened. Before the United Kingdom delegation voted on this question I inquired what it involved and I was told it involved the statute. I don’t think I should be asked to go back on what was made specific at the time.

Secretary Byrnes: I agree that the record shows that the four of us agreed upon the line. That is settled and I don’t think there is any question about that. The record shows the Conference unanimously approved paragraphs 2, 4 and 6, and the rest of the page. That has been agreed to by the four of us and I assume there is no objection to that.

Maybe we can proceed this way—is there any desire to reverse the decision on those matters? If there is not any desire on the part of any member of the Council, then I must agree that it would not be necessary to have a hearing on those questions that we have already settled.

Mr. Bevin: I think you have put my point well. I want to know if that which you just quoted is to be reopened.

Secretary Byrnes: Can we agree we invite them to appear and discuss those matters as to which there has not been agreement between the four of us.

Mr. Molotov: There are two different questions involved. One of them is the question on which agreement has already been reached by us in the course of the examination of the question of Trieste. There should be no reproaches that the Soviet Delegation has departed from any of the agreements made. But what matters is the second question. There is a decision stating that we should hear the representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy, and the question which arises now is whether we shall do so or not. It is obvious that they should be heard. Now the question arises as to the points on which they should be heard. The decision does not specify the points on which they should be heard and on which they should be prohibited to state their views. For instance, in Article 16 it is said that the question of Trieste in paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 is involved and that they should be heard on these points. But if we permit the representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy to state their views on certain definite points and prevent them from doing so on other points, then an embarrassing situation will arise. They have read the decision in question. Why should we prohibit them to state their views on any of the points involved in Article 16? The Soviet Delegation sees no reason not to permit representatives of these two countries to state their views both on territorial questions and on the question of the statute of Trieste. The Soviet Delegation believes that all these questions are dealt with in Article 16 and, therefore, representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy should be permitted to state their views on all these questions. We do not know whether representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy will repeat their views which they have already stated or whether they will not do so, but let us not do any guesswork in this connection. It may well happen that they have something useful to say on this point which may induce us to change even the agreed decisions which we have already adopted. Therefore, it would be improper not to permit the representatives of these two countries to state their views on some other of the points involved in Article 16, even if one thinks it is not possible to permit them to do so because there are certain decisions which have already been agreed upon between us.

An embarrassing situation will arise if we invite representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy and tell them that they are authorized to state their views, not on the whole of Article 16 but on a certain part of it. This will not be in harmony with the decision of the Paris Conference and, therefore, I think that the proposal made by the Soviet Delegation, as amended by M. Couve de Murville, should be adopted—namely, that the representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy should be invited and should be permitted to express their views on any of the questions involved in Article 16, and subsequently, if it is considered necessary that further study should be given to the questions involved, we shall decide on how this is to be done. If the hearing of the representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy disposes of the question under consideration, the matter will be completed, but after we have heard the representatives from Yugoslavia and Italy it is possible that we shall have to decide whether the questions under consideration call for further study and whether the study is to be undertaken by ourselves or by our deputies. All this should not be anticipated before the hearing of representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy. If everything is clear to us before we hear representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy, then what was the purpose of adopting the decision in question? Representatives of the two countries should be given an opportunity to be heard and then, after hearing them, we shall decide as to the further course of discussion, but no conclusions should be drawn in advance and one should not take the view that representatives of the two countries will have nothing useful to say. This is the sort of prophecy to which the Soviet Delegation would not like to commit itself.

M. Couve de Murville: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that perhaps my previous statement was not quite understood. I merely stated that we should apply the recommendation made in paragraph IV, page 13, and that this applies to the set of provisions concerning the statute of Trieste. This paragraph IV was not a French proposal but was accepted during the general discussion and I believe was amended by the United States Delegation, on the initiative of the Polish Delegation. It is obvious that this paragraph relates to questions which are dealt with in the preceding paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which relate to the statute of Trieste. I think it is therefore important that the Council of Ministers discuss the substance of the proposal before acting upon the recommendation made by the Paris Conference—namely, that we should hear the representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy. That is why I have proposed that we should hear first these representatives.

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, since Mr. Molotov has said that all the decisions stand, anything we might do would have to be in the form of an agreed amendment to these decisions. I have no objection to hearing the Yugoslavs, and I have no doubt they will stray a little wider from the terms of reference. I have no desire to stipulate that they must be kept in a strait jacket. I am quite agreeable that we hear them, and hear them as speedily as possible.

Secretary Byrnes: I think that after this exchange of views we understand the position of the members of the Council. The Chair would like to know whether it is desired that I communicate with representatives of Yugoslavia, also with the Italian Ambassador, and ask whether the Government of Italy desires to be heard and if so, to name his representative. Would you wish to have a representative of Yugoslavia here tomorrow?

Mr. Bevin: Should they both be present at the same time?

Secretary Byrnes: The Secretary General will communicate with the Italian representative and find out whether it is possible for him to be here, and if not, fix the earliest day that the two of them can be present.

Mr. Molotov: I think that distinction should be drawn between representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy. Indeed, it happens that we drew this distinction in our previous meetings of the Council between representatives of these two countries. When we gave our hearing to representatives of Italy in the past, representatives of Yugoslavia were present and I think that we could first hear representatives of Yugoslavia and then subsequently invite Italy to state her views in the presence of representatives of Yugoslavia.

Mr. Bevin: The disadvantage of that, I suggest, is the Italians will not hear what the Yugoslavs say and therefore they cannot make any comment on any ideas that may be submitted. In London and Paris we had them both together at the same time. We had them together at Molotov’s suggestion. I am in accord to get the views of both of them and have them comment on each other’s suggestion. It would be of benefit to the Council and it would be preferable if they both heard each other and made their comments.

Mr. Molotov: I am not insisting on my suggestion.

Secretary Byrnes: Then the Secretary-General will secure the information as to what day they will appear and the members of the Council will be notified.

Article 10A

We now proceed to Article X, Austro-Italian Agreement.⁷ Is there objection to the adoption of the recommendation of the Conference?

Mr. Molotov: The Russian delegation sees no reason for the acceptance of this article which does not relate to the Treaty.

Secretary Byrnes: The United States delegation is following the policy that it announced at the Conference when the Conference adopted the recommendation by two-thirds vote, that it was heartily in favor of that proposal.

M. Couve De Murville: The French delegation has no objection to this proposal.

Mr. Bevin: The United Kingdom delegation favors it and thinks it is very beneficial to the two countries, and we sincerely hope in this political-economic thinking there should be cooperation and the Council will come to find its way to unanimous agreement.

Mr. Molotov: Apart from whether there will be such an article or not, if Italy and Austria find it necessary to conclude an agreement to this effect they will be free to do so. The absence of any mention of such agreement in the treaty will be no obstacle to any agreement that may be concluded between Italy and Austria on this subject. However, if we write into the Treaty that we have taken note of this agreement we shall be able to find something else to take note of in that Treaty and we shall so overburden the Treaty with a number of articles which have not been thoroughly considered, and this question is precisely the one that has not been given serious consideration. That, besides, gives rise to objection as far as its substance is concerned. The absence of any mention of the agreement will not be an obstacle to the conclusion of such an agreement between the two countries in question. It is their right to conclude an agreement if they find it necessary upon their responsibility.

I should like to add that the conclusion of this agreement and its preparation was perhaps known to other governments, but it came as a surprise to the Soviet delegation which was placed in the face of a fait accompli. It was probably considered that it must have been enough to have negotiations outside the Paris Conference between the governments concerned. The Soviet delegation has no objection to conducting such negotiations and does not demand that it be informed of them. Let it be a surprise to the Soviet delegation alone, but I wish to state that this agreement has no bearing whatsoever upon the Treaty in question, and there is no reason to take note of it in the provisions of the Treaty.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Molotov, in Article X we agreed to language that Italy “shall enter into or confirm arrangements with Austria to guarantee free movement of passenger and freight traffic between the North and East Tyrol.” After that Italy and Austria reached an agreement that was presented to the Conference, and two-thirds of the Conference asked that we adopt this recommendation, to take note of it. It does seem to me that it certainly will do no harm and it may do a lot of good. Both the Italian Government and the Austrian Government agreed it should be placed in the Treaty. Therefore, I hope there will be no objection to it.

I must say that so far the United States delegation is concerned that it is in accordance with the agreement of the Ministers that this would be a desirable thing to do. We did express the same opinion to the representative of Austria, but as to the details of the agreement we were not consulted and did not attempt to include them, but we are very happy to know that they arrived at the agreement that is desired by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Molotov: I should like to draw attention to the fact that Article X, to which reference has been made, deals with passenger and merchandise traffic, whereas Article X which it is suggested that we adopt, deals with entirely different questions which have not been discussed previously in the Council of Foreign Ministers. There is no objection to the adoption of the previous Article X, but the new Article X has not been discussed in the past, and there is no reason to include this Article in the Treaty, all the more so that we are required to take note of an agreement which came as a surprise to us.

Secretary Byrnes: If my friend will look at paragraph 3, Sub (c) of this agreement, he will find out that the Italian Government with the aim of establishing good-neighborly relations between Austria and Italy agrees under (c) to draw up a convention for the free passenger and goods transit between North and East Tyrol, both by rail and to the greatest extent possible by road, which is directly responsive to the language of Article 10 which was discussed in the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Of course, there are some other provisions in the agreement. The United States Delegation was never advised as to the other provisions, but certainly when they are a matter of agreement between two countries and when ⅔ of our Allies believe it would be helpful to them to include it in a treaty, we cannot reject it solely because Austria and Italy did not come and advise us of their negotiations prior to the submission of the agreement.

Mr. Molotov: I should like to say that the information supplied by Mr. Byrnes goes on to prove the fact that only paragraph 3 (c) of the agreement in question has bearing upon the agreed decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers. All the remaining items of the said agreement have no bearing whatsoever upon the agreed decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers. And this fact goes to prove that there are things in Article 10 (a) which have never been discussed before and which raise objection as far as their substance and preparation are concerned.

If Mr. Byrnes further says that this recommendation was adopted by ⅔ vote of the Peace Conference, this fact only goes to show that not all the decisions, not all the recommendations adopted by ⅔ vote are satisfactory decisions and that there are among them those which have no bearing whatsoever upon the Peace Treaty.

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Byrnes is of the opinion that this is quite an achievement for the Council of Foreign Ministers. There is no question about the irritation between the peoples of Austria and Italy as to this frontier. Representatives of these two countries came together of their own accord, without dictation from anybody and arrived at an agreement to eliminate irritation and to promote a peaceful situation among their people. I claim it is quite an accomplishment of the Council of Foreign Ministers. I really regret that my friend would not look at it in the same way and say that even when we submitted to them one question they went further and settled not one but a number of other questions that were pending between them. That promotes peace on earth and that is the object of the work of this Conference, to promote peace.

Gentlemen, do you agree?

Mr. Molotov: There is information also to the effect that the population of Tyrol is dissatisfied with the agreement.

Mr. Byrnes: Is one of the parties or both dissatisfied?

Mr. Molotov: This will not improve the quality of the agreement.

Article 13, Para. 4

Mr. Byrnes: Shall we proceed to the next item, then, which is 13, paragraph the fourth,⁸ affecting the rights of conceded territory? This proposal was adopted by a vote of 14 to 7. Is there objection to including it in the treaty?

Mr. Molotov: I must recall the fact that on this subject agreement had already been reached in the Council of Foreign Ministers and it was on the initiative of the American Delegation that a new proposal was made at the Conference which was at variance with what had been previously agreed upon and which constituted a violation of the previous agreement on this subject. There is no need for this addition because there is no reason for the apprehensions which are expressed in addition to this Article as to whether the population that is to enter the territory of a friendly country and to leave the territory of an enemy country will enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms. There is no need to include this Article. This addition, so far as its substance is concerned and because the inclusion of it, will constitute a violation in form of the previous agreement reached on Article 13.

I shall recall the fact that similar proposal was made in the Council of Foreign Ministers in the past and we failed to reach agreement on this question at that time, and that is why it was decided at that time to leave Article 13 consisting of three items only. However, the American Delegation moved a new proposal at the Paris Conference that was an addition to the agreed Article, an addition which was at variance with what had been previously agreed upon in the Council of Foreign Ministers. For this reason the Soviet Delegation suggests that we abstain from the adoption of this new paragraph 4.

Mr. Byrnes: I must say that under no reasonable or fair interpretation of the language could it be said that it was a violation of what had been agreed to. In the Council I presented it, and we argued it; the Soviet Delegation could not agree to it. I gave notice that I would present it to the Conference. Thereupon it was included in the unagreed Articles that were submitted by the Council to the Conference for the consideration of the Conference.

In Mr. Molotov’s concluding words he said that the American Delegation presented this new proposal. He is right and because it was a new proposal it was not in violation of anything that was agreed to at the Council.

In the Conference no one regarded it as a reflection upon anyone. The nations of the world, aligned by a vote of 14 to 7, agreed to it. It has reference to the human rights within the territories ceded to another nation. If there is no danger of people being denied rights, then who in the world would object to it?

My recollection is that when we discussed it in the Council, Mr. Molotov said that it might be necessary in the case of Greece, in the ceding of territory to Greece. As no one objected, I think that it might be a good thing to include it.

Mr. Molotov: I am prepared to leave aside the formal aspect of the question, but while I do not renounce anything that I said with regard to Greece and what was called to mind by Mr. Byrnes, I am thinking of whether it will not be possible for us to find such a solution of this question as will provide—as will make it possible for us to reach agreement. I wonder if it will not be possible to accept language as follows, namely, to say: “in accordance with the laws of the country in question”, and the rest is to stand as it is now. Can such an amendment be accepted?

Secretary Byrnes: Where is it proposed to insert that language, at the beginning or the end?

Mr. Molotov: “The State to which the territory is ceded will take all steps in order to insure in accordance with the laws of the country in question to all persons resident within this territory without distinction as to race …” and so on.

Secretary Byrnes: My only objection to it, if I understand, is that if there are laws now that would insure protection to peoples in the territory ceded, why it would be all right, but if there is no law to advance ample protection, then it would mean nothing.

Mr. Molotov: In accordance with the fundamental laws of the country, bearing in mind that we have to deal with a democratic country.

Secretary Byrnes: There isn’t any one country named here, and what I want to suggest to the Soviet representative is that with transfer of territory, and transfer of people with the territory, we have heard time and again of discrimination against people using their own language. I have included the word, “language” particularly, but it applies to these other rights, and if, in the fundamental law, there is nothing to protect a man in these rights, what would happen would be we’d transfer a man, transfer human beings, and they’d have no protection.

Mr. Molotov: I should suggest that we adopt this paragraph and as to the doubts which arise in Mr. Byrnes’ mind, we should instruct either our deputies or our legal experts to investigate in order to see whether there are relevant guarantees in the laws of the countries concerned. It seems to me obvious that we can have no doubts as to the existence of such laws in France, Yugoslavia, and also in Albania. I am doubtful about Greece, but in any case, we should verify whether there are such guarantees in the countries concerned, and if it appears that there are no such guarantees, then the language of the Article in question ought to be brought into line with the existing situation. The matter concerns only four States—France, Yugoslavia, Albania, and Greece, and it will be easy to verify.

Secretary Byrnes: I have never talked to the representative of Yugoslavia about this Trieste affair that I haven’t been told about the discrimination against the Slavs in that territory after the last war. I haven’t any doubt that if we have the Deputies also look into the law of Italy of 1920 that you might find there was no discrimination there, but sometimes governments change and when they change, the action of the government changes. People change with the change of government. The language as it appears here is for the protection of people against discrimination. If a government enacted a law that complied with it, but didn’t enforce the law, no good would have been accomplished. I don’t think that France would object to it. I am sure that Greece wouldn’t object to it, and even Albania wouldn’t object to it. And I would add I have no information that Yugoslavia would object to it. I simply have not been informed that they have any objection.

Suppose we send it to the Deputies and see if they can suggest any language that would be satisfactory to all?

Mr. Molotov: I have no objection to it.

Article 14A

Secretary Byrnes: If we can’t agree on it, that is the best disposition to make on it. The next item refers to Trieste and it is 64B.⁹

Mr. Molotov: 14A.¹⁰

Secretary Byrnes: 14A does not appear among the recommendations of the Conference that I have.

Mr. Molotov: Are we prevented from considering that Article on which the whole was split into two halves—ten against, ten for and one abstaining?

Secretary Byrnes: I do not know what Article Mr. Molotov is referring to.

Mr. Molotov: 14A.

Secretary Byrnes: I haven’t got any recommendation as to 14A.

Mr. Molotov: There is no recommendation but there is a vote that was taken on this Article with the result that ten voted for, ten against, and one abstained.

Secretary Byrnes: It would not be included, then, in the recommendations regarding which my recollection is very clear. There were two kinds, one resulting from a two-thirds vote and one from a simple majority. These were the two kinds of recommendations that were agreed upon.

Mr. Molotov: Of course, we can revert to this Article after we have considered all the recommendations. I have no objection to this point.

Article 64B

Secretary Byrnes: The next unagreed Article as to which there is a recommendation is Article 64, Part B, subject: Reparations. Is there objection to the adoption of the recommendation of the Conference?

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation thinks that it would be unjust to fix for Yugoslavia the same amount of reparations as for Greece. Yugoslavia is a country which has a bigger population than Greece and the territory of which is also larger than that of Greece, and besides, Yugoslavia is a country that suffered heavily during the past war. And we have also to bear in mind the fact that what was contemplated by Yugoslavia as compensation for her suffering, namely, the transfer of Trieste to Yugoslavia, was rejected by us and therefore, we consider that the amount of reparations for Yugoslavia fixed at $100,000,000 is insufficient. Before we talk about the figure to be fixed on reparations to be fixed for Yugoslavia and Greece, the Soviet Delegation believes that it will be advisable for us to fix the ratio of reparations for Greece and Yugoslavia as being two to one. Then it will be easy to reach agreement on the actual amount of reparations.

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, I accept the decision of the Conference. I couldn’t under any circumstance, adopt that proposal. Greece was attacked by Italy, suffered very heavily, and I think that the decision should be accepted.

Secretary Byrnes: At the Conference, the proposal that they receive equal reparations was adopted by 14 votes to 2 with 5 abstaining.¹¹ In the Commission, our representative voted against the proposal of equal reparations because we thought it exceedingly unfair to Greece that Yugoslavia should receive as large an amount as Greece, when Yugoslavia was being ceded territory in which territory, we learned in July, the installations of utilities amounted to at the lowest one hundred and ninety million dollars in addition to the mines and other property, so that when it was proposed to give to Yugoslavia an amount far in excess of that which was given to Greece, we deemed it so unfair that we abstained from voting in the Committee.¹²

Our proposal was defeated in the Committee. Then in the Conference, we voted for this proposal that they should be given an equal amount, and we stand by the Conference recommendation.

I submit to my friend of the Soviet Delegation that this is one of the most difficult questions that the Economic Committee had. They spent a lot of time on it. I think they made about the best disposition of it that could possibly be made and we ought to agree with it.

Mr. Molotov: Of course, one is free not to take into account the reasons induced by the Yugoslavs as regards the damage they suffered, as well as the economic straits in which they found themselves after the war, but to do so would be unjust as far as we are concerned. When it is said that Yugoslavia is to receive in territory property amounting to $90 million, then one ought to remember that this is a question of the territory which indisputably belongs to Yugoslavia and no one dares to deny this. On the other hand, the territory which Yugoslavia has considerable justification to claim, I mean the territory of Trieste, is to remain outside the confines of Yugoslavia and if the reparations for Greece are to be as large as for Yugoslavia, this will mean that we shall equalize the things which cannot be equalized. As far as the population and the territories of Greece and Yugoslavia are concerned, the damage suffered by Yugoslavia cannot be compared with that suffered by Greece, though the damage suffered by Greece is also very considerable. I must say that the draft peace treaty which we are now preparing causes considerable dissatisfaction in Yugoslavia and we should be cautious not to take any steps that are likely to increase that dissatisfaction. We should do everything possible in order to insure that Yugoslavia signs the treaty. But if we adopt any decisions that will be entirely unsatisfactory to Yugoslavia, we shall be faced with a difficult situation. I hardly think that anyone of us desires to create a situation where Yugoslavia will refuse to sign the treaty. It is highly desirable to meet Yugoslavia as far as possible and the reparations question is exactly the one on which it is possible to meet Yugoslavia and thus remove any reasons for trouble in our relations with that country. Therefore, the Soviet Delegation thinks that it will be correct and right to adopt the amount of reparations as it was fixed by the Paris Conference for Greece and, at the same time, to establish, as far as the reparations for Yugoslavia are concerned, a ratio of 2 to 1 as compared with Greece. We should do whatever is possible in order to diminish the dissatisfaction with the treaty in Yugoslavia and we should give serious consideration to the reasons induced by Yugoslavia.

Secretary Byrnes: Well, is there any hope that we can agree on this? If we can’t, we’ll pass it.

Mr. Bevin: Anyone who has studied the history of the Italian attack on Greece knows that Greece received practically no succor from anybody, no assistance, then to cut her down and put her in an inferior position, I think it is asking too much. It is discriminating. I thought the Committee when it arrived at this felt Greece was not treated fairly and that the Committee had done their best and think we should stick to it.

Secretary Byrnes: As we can’t agree, I suggest that we pass it and what is the pleasure of the Council as to continuing, or should we stop and resume tomorrow at 3:30?

Mr. Molotov: We have not yet discussed the question of reparations for Albania.

Secretary Byrnes: There is no recommendation from the Conference on that, it did not receive a majority.

Mr. Molotov: This being so, I ask for this question to be brought up immediately after discussion of the recommendations.

Secretary Byrnes: I assume that what we would do under the Moscow provision is to take the recommendations then when we are through, it is up to the Council to decide what they want to do.

If it would be satisfactory to meet at 3:30 tomorrow instead of 4, is that agreeable?

Mr. Bevin: I’d like to be clear on one point. In Paris when we were discussing procedures the first thing we advocated was that a recommendation was to receive a two-thirds vote, then I thought we agreed to take into account anything that had received a majority. Therefore, if any Minister wants to raise anything that has a majority, not two-thirds, we should go through it again and see whether there is any point they desire to raise.

Mr. Molotov: No such decision was adopted.

Mr. Bevin: Are we taking into account all the decisions of the Conference? Those that received a majority vote as well as two-thirds.

Secretary Byrnes: Yes.

Mr. Bevin: That is the answer. If anyone wants to raise anything else, it comes in afterwards.

Secretary Byrnes: Yes. Well, we’ll meet at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon. I want to see if we can’t agree to step into the next room to have a cocktail.

Mr. Molotov: The decision for the consideration of questions will not be changed as compared to that which we followed today, for tomorrow?

Mr. Byrnes: It will be the same.

(The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.)

1. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see Record of Decisions, infra.
2. The text of the Record of Recommendations by the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy is printed in vol. iv, p. 889.
3. Under consideration at this point were articles 3, 4, and 16, paragraph 1, of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy relative to the description of the boundaries between Italy and Yugoslavia, between Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste, and between Yugoslavia and the Free Territory of Trieste, respectively. These articles, which are printed in vol. iv, pp. 3, 4, and 9, and which were adopted by the Peace Conference, simply recorded the agreement of the Council of Foreign Ministers to adopt the so-called “French line” as the frontier in question. Detailed descriptions of the boundaries were not, however, considered by the Peace Conference.

4. The description of the boundary line between Italy and Yugoslavia, which would constitute article 3 of the Italian Peace Treaty, was discussed by the Deputies of the Council of Foreign Ministers at the time of the Paris Peace Conference. Final agreement was not reached, however, because of a disagreement between the United States, British, and French Delegations on the one hand and the Soviet Delegation on the other hand regarding the description of the boundary line in the vicinity of the village of Merna. The description of the Italian-Yugoslav boundary proposed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France at this time was the same as the description which was ultimately included in the Peace Treaty with Italy as article 3; for text, see 61 Stat. (pt. 2) 1245 (TIAS 1648). The Soviet Union was at this time proposing the following description of the boundary in the Merna area:

   “Departing from the Gorizia–Aisovizza railway the line then bends southwest leaving in Yugoslavia the town of San Pietro and in Italy the Hospice and the road bordering it and, about 1 km. from the Gorizia S. Marco station, crosses the line joining the above railway and the Sagrado-Cormons railway, skirts the Gorizia cemetery, which is left in Italy, crosses Highway No. 55 from Gorizia to Trieste, skirts the western end of the village of Ruppa, leaving in Yugoslavia the towns of Vertoiba and Merna;”

5. For the agreement under reference here, see vol. iv, p. 810.
6. Stanoje Simić.
7. Mr. Bevin later corrected himself, stating that he meant Paris and not London. [Footnote in the source text.]
7. The proposed new article 10a is printed in vol. iv, p. 893. The text of the Provisions Agreed upon by the Austrian and Italian Governments on September 5, 1946, is included as Annex IV of the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 61 Stat, (pt. 2) 1245 (TIAS 1648).
8. See Record of Recommendations on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, vol. iv, p. 889.
9. There is apparently an error in the minutes at this point. The article under reference, 64B, the text of which is printed in vol. iv, p. 25, deals with reparations and has no relevance to Trieste.
10. The proposal of the Yugoslav Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference to add a new article, 14a, to the Peace Treaty with Italy was adopted by the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy at its 32nd meeting, September 24, 1946. For the United States Delegation summary of the proceedings of this meeting and the text of the proposed article 14a, see vol. iii, p. 535. When the Peace Conference voted on the articles of the Peace Treaty with Italy at the 35th Plenary Meeting, October 9, 1946, the proposed article 14a was not adopted, the vote being 10 for, 10 against, and 1 abstention.
11. The vote under reference occurred at the 36th Plenary Meeting of the Paris Peace Conference, October 9, 1946, 10 p.m. For the Verbatim Record of that meeting, see vol. iii, p. 727.
12. At its 38th Meeting, October 4, 1946, the Economic Commission for Italy of the Paris Peace Conference voted on questions relating to the Italian reparations to countries other than the U.S.S.R. For the United States Delegation summary of the proceedings of that meeting, see ibid., p. 674.