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, Third Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 6, 1946, 10:30 a.m.⁵⁴

New York, November 6, 1946, 10:30 a.m.

secret
USDEL(CFM) (46) (NY) 3d Meeting

Views of the Yugoslav and Italian Governments

Mr. Bevin: The meeting is opened. I propose to invite the Secretary General to bring the representatives of Italy and Yugoslavia into the room and to hear the Yugoslavs first. We shall hear their views with regard to Article 16 of the draft peace treaty with Italy.

(The representatives of Italy and Yugoslavia entered the room and took their seats.)⁵⁵

The CFM extends a hearty welcome to the representatives of Italy and Yugoslavia. We will hear the views of the Yugoslavia representatives first. (The statement of Foreign Minister Simic is attached.⁵⁶)

Mr. Bevin: I invite the Italian Ambassador to present his statement. (The statement of Ambassador Tarchiani is attached⁵⁷).

Mr. Bevin: Does any member of the Council desire to seek additional information from the Representatives?

I desire to thank the Representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy for giving us their views, which the Council will carefully study.

(The Italian and Yugoslav Representatives left the meeting.)

Mr. Molotov: Mr. Chairman, the Soviet Delegation believes that the Council of Foreign Ministers will act correctly if it instructs the Deputies to give a more detailed study to the statements made by Yugoslavia and Italy. I am bound to say that the statements, in particular the statement made by the Italian Delegation and its concluding remarks and threats, make a bad impression upon the Soviet Delegation. Nevertheless, it is necessary to give a more attentive consideration to these statements and to prepare those questions which we shall have to examine finally, and therefore I think we shall act correctly if we instruct our Deputies to this effect.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, if the Council does not wish to consider the recommendation of the Peace Conference at this time, I have no objection to passing it over until such other time as is deemed wise, but I must say that I do not think the Deputies can make very much headway or progress in the consideration of these two papers.

For instance, I have in mind this situation. We have agreed on a line. Now, when we refer these two papers to the Deputies, are the Deputies to consider a change in the line that the Ministers have already agreed to?

We have been over this matter since September 1945, and we have on several occasions referred to the Deputies the consideration of this line. We have sent representatives to the field. We have considered their reports, we came to an agreement, we submitted it to the Peace Conference, and the Peace Conference by a two-thirds vote also reached an agreement.

Now I am wondering whether, when we refer this question to the Deputies, the four gentlemen who represent us in that capacity would feel at liberty to undo what the Ministers have done and the Peace Conference has done. If they would not feel that way, then we would be wasting time in placing that burden on them.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation does not insist that we instruct our Deputies right away to take up this question but it seems proper to the Soviet Delegation to have an exchange of views in the Council of Foreign Ministers. In connection with the remarks made by Mr. Byrnes, I should like to recall that what he has said is true. But on the other hand, it is also true that the Conference adopted a decision to give further hearing to the Yugoslavs and Italians. I do not think that the Conference adopted this decision because it considered that we should have time to spare and that we could afford to waste that time in hearing the representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy. It is clear, obviously, that the Conference adopted this decision because it considered it useful to give a hearing to the Yugoslavs and Italians, and because of that, we cannot but take into account the remarks made by them.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the action of the Conference carries with it the implication that we should not only hear them but should consider what has been said. It would certainly be my thought that we should do that. I was speaking only of referring the matter to the Deputies. I think the Council should consider what has been said. I am willing to discuss here in the Council any proposal on the part of any member with regard to the line. If any member wishes to make a change, I shall be glad to listen to his views even though I have made a statement as to my views with reference to conference recommendations. My proposal is that in as much as the Yugoslav Delegate submitted in writing suggestions as to the Statute, that the members of the Council should give consideration to those suggestions. We will not be in session tomorrow. We will have an opportunity to study them and we resume the discussion of the suggestions on Friday or some other day that is satisfactory to the Council. We can take them up the same time we take up the conference recommendations.

Mr. Bevin: What is the motion? Mr. Molotov’s suggestion is that we take up the study of these papers which involves the whole question. Your proposal is that we take up the question involving the Statute.

Secretary Byrnes: My proposal is that when we take up the consideration of the conference recommendations, we shall at that time consider in the Council, the proposals submitted by the Yugoslav Delegation which have reference to Article 16. If at that time, any member of the Council wants to move to change the formal agreement, I have no objection to it being considered at that time.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation has no objection to Mr. Byrnes’ proposal.

Mr. Bevin: The proposal now is that if anyone desires to move an amendment to our previous decision on the line, they will be entitled to do so. And the second point is to take up the question of the Statute when the conference recommendations are before us. Any objections to that?

M. Couve de Murville: Does this, Mr. Chairman, mean that at our next meeting, we shall take up the discussion of the conference recommendation regarding the Statute of Trieste?

Mr. Bevin: As I understand it, it is the entire article.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, what I assumed we would do would be to complete the consideration of the recommendations that we have been considering for the last two days. When we have done so, we shall then go back and consider them in the order in which they appear on this table before us.

Mr. Bevin: That is, we continue our agenda today and then we go back to this problem which becomes the first problem we take up. Is that correct?

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, if we go back and take them in the order set forth on the list it would not be the first matter to be taken up. It is the third matter.

Mr. Bevin: Is there any objection to that course?

Mr. Molotov: No objection.

Secretary Byrnes: Is there any reason why we shouldn’t continue?

Mr. Molotov: It’s a good proposal. We must avail ourselves of the time we have. You expected to hear long speeches from the Yugoslavs.

Mr. Bevin: I am disappointed.

Mr. Byrnes: I am surprised.

Mr. Molotov: Happily, affairs took a different turn.

Annex 6, Part B⁵⁸

Secretary Byrnes: Annex 3 is the next item.

Mr. Bevin: How about Annex 1? Is there anything on that? The first item then is Annex 3.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that there is no recommendation on 3. Annex 6 B is the next item.

Mr. Bevin: That will have to come up later then. As I understand annex 3, it was not considered by the Conference and was to be considered by the Council of Foreign Ministers, so that will come up after we have completed the recommendations. The next one is Annex 6. This proposal was a UK proposal and was adopted by the Conference by 15 votes to 6. Shall we accept the recommendation of the Conference?

Mr. Molotov: Give me time to read this. I brought too many papers with me. The proposal of the Soviet Delegation is to add in paragraph 1, Part B, Annex 6, the words, “which will be granted to the citizens of Italy.” This amendment implies that the United Nations nationals will enjoy the same rights as the citizens of Italy on terms of equality and accordingly, the Soviet Delegation suggests that paragraph 2 be excluded.

Mr. Bevin: What is the purpose of the amendment?

Mr. Molotov: The purpose of the amendment is not to create any privileged position for foreigners in Italy, and it will not be a good thing if foreigners in Italy enjoy the same rights as the citizens of Italy. This is the purpose of the Soviet amendment. I should like to add that. We know, prior to the Conference, the Soviet Delegation objected to the insertion of this paragraph, considering this paragraph a superfluous one, since this question is sufficiently covered by other articles of the Treaty, in particular, by Article 68.⁵⁹ But by way of concession, the Soviet Delegation is ready to accept this Part B of Annex 6 subject to the amendment proposed by it.

Mr. Bevin: As I understand this, I don’t think Mr. Molotov’s amendment covers our point. Perhaps I might try and explain it. When war was declared by Italy, the business of United Nations nationals was transferred to Italian control and there it has been ever since. The Italians should restore this as it was. In the event they took everything in the financing of the war thereby reducing the guarantees laid down by the Italian law, the companies who were deprived of their business should be allowed to build up again before they have to obey the Italian law. And it’s a very important thing if when a country goes to war and takes the property of United Nations nationals and then at the end of the war United Nations nationals are not given a special position, we make a present of the property. It makes war rather profitable. And I do think it is a rather important proposal. It would be impossible for the United Kingdom to accept such an addition. If you added the words Mr. Molotov suggests, it would really nullify the effect of paragraph (1) altogether because the idea of paragraph (1) is they are nationals and if they so desire they can resume their former portfolios, that is they can take up their insurance where it left off. It doesn’t mean the Italians are compelled to do it. Therefore, I would ask the Soviet Government to agree to this Article as it stands. I think it is reasonable.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation sees no reason for the apprehensions expressed by Mr. Bevin. There is Article 68, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of which provide for sufficient guarantees as regards United Nations property in Italy and I wonder if the British Delegation intends by paragraph 6 to extend these rights as against those provided for in Article 68. If this is not the purpose of the British Delegation, if the British Delegation does not wish to extend the rights as regards foreign property in Italian territory as compared to those provided for in Article 68, then Article 68 fully takes care of what the British Delegation wishes to take care of, but if this a matter of extending these rights then the Soviet Delegation sees no reason to do so.

Mr. Bevin: I am advised that Article 68 does not cover it. We don’t need to extend it, but it does not cover it. This is insurance business in which the British companies and American companies and other companies in the world have insured a person and that insurance business was taken away when England declared war and the purpose of this is to allow the facilities for the citizens of Italy who had insurance with these companies to return and take up their business where they left off. It is said that Article 68 does not cover it. If I thought Article 68 covered this type of property, I shouldn’t be arguing it, but I am advised it doesn’t.

Secretary Byrnes: If Mr. Molotov thinks it is covered by 68 and you, Mr. Bevin, have doubt about it being covered, can’t you agree upon stating language in 68 that will remove the doubt?

Mr. Bevin: I am willing for the deputies to do that.

Mr. Molotov: I think that it is necessary to avoid misunderstanding in this matter. It is my understanding that the insurance companies will be satisfied within the limits of Article 68. They should be satisfied. If the British Delegation wishes to go beyond what is provided for in Article 68, the Soviet Delegation sees no reason to extend the limits of this Article and, consequently, it is not a question of amending this Article but a question of satisfying the insurance companies within the limits of Article 68. The Soviet Delegation sees no reason to place these insurance companies in a privileged position.

Mr. Bevin: Well, the whole question is whether—I don’t want the insurance companies placed in a privileged position against other property owners, but they have had their business confiscated when the Fascist Government entered the war, and I think they are entitled to be in the position they were in when that happened. I am told that Article 68 doesn’t cover this special type of business, therefore, I would like to press that either provision be made in Article 68—and if Mr. Molotov says that the insurance companies can be satisfied under Article 68, I’d like to look at that again to see whether that is a fact, whether it covers this point, because I am told it doesn’t and I am quite willing for it to be looked at by the Deputies to see whether it does cover it. I don’t think there is any dispute in principle.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I suggest we ought to see if we can reach agreement, and the language can be straightened out. In Article 68, it is said the Italian Government undertakes that all property, rights and interests passing under this Article shall be restored free of encumbrance. Now, if it is the desire of the Council to make certain that there is no discrimination against this particular kind of property, there should be no objection to adding after the words “property, rights and interests” the words “including insurance contracts or insurance portfolios.”

Mr. Molotov: I’d like to ask you to repeat your suggestion.

(Translator repeated in Russian.)

Secretary Byrnes: They advise me that that is the technical term for insurance “portfolio”—I accept that statement. The effect of that would be to put it on the same basis as other property. The British Delegation expressed doubt that that would be construed as including this kind of property, therefore, you’d remove the doubt.

M. Couve de Murville: I should like to observe, Sir, that the amendment suggested by Mr. Byrnes covers point 1 of the United Kingdom proposal but not point 2 which is a special provision on insurance to facilitate the reconstruction of their insurance business.

Mr. Molotov: This question can be referred for further study to the Deputies without anticipating amendment.

Mr. Bevin: You mean without submitting amendments here?

(Mr. Molotov nodded his head in agreement.)

Mr. Bevin: I have no objection to it going for further study.

Secretary Byrnes: If we can agree on the principle the Deputies’ task would be much easier.

Mr. Bevin: Sometimes the Deputies agree where we don’t seem able to.

Then that question will go to the Deputies.

Annex 7, Part 3⁶⁰

The next one is Annex 7, part 3. This was adopted by 12 votes to 3. 12 votes to 6, 3 abstentions, I’m sorry.

Mr. Molotov: If all the Delegations present here insist on this point, the Soviet Delegation will have no objection to its acceptance.

Mr. Bevin: No objections?

Secretary Byrnes: No objection.

M. Couve de Murville: No objection.

Mr. Bevin: Thank you very much.

Annex 7, Part 5⁶¹

Mr. Bevin: The next one is part 5, a special provision of the United States, and the proposal was adopted 15 to 4 with 2 abstentions.

Secretary Byrnes: Well, if the negotiable instrument clause is accepted as it has been, then the United States asks for the inclusion of this provision because the negotiable instrument proposal has provisions which cannot be agreed to or carried into effect by the Federal Government under our system of government. It is controlled by state laws and that is why we asked for the exception. We had to make a request of that kind in the Versailles Treaty and the attorneys who are more familiar with the subject than I am say the same thing will have to be done here.

Mr. Molotov: I have a question to ask. Can such an agreement to this point serve as a precedent for any other Delegation to make a similar reservation?

Mr. Bevin: Do you mean, Mr. Molotov, on any other subject or on this subject? I was just thinking from memory and I have an idea that Brazil was in a similar position.

Mr. Molotov: On any other question.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, what would happen if the Treaty was submitted to our Senate for ratification would be that the Senate would not ratify it without a reservation which would make it plain it was not exceeding the powers of the Federal Government. Because a matter of this kind is affected by the laws of the several States. It is far better to put it here than to have reservations.

Mr. Bevin: I think Mr. Molotov’s point, if I understood him aright, was, would there be any reservations on any other part besides this one?

Secretary Byrnes: Not so far as the United States is concerned.

Mr. Bevin: I don’t think so.

Secretary Byrnes: There is none here.

M. Couve de Murville: We have no reservations.

Mr. Bevin: We haven’t got a written constitution so we don’t need to make reservations. It is very useful.

Secretary Byrnes: I think so.

Mr. Molotov: Probably it is useful.

Mr. Bevin: It has been going on a long time. Do we accept this United States proposal?

Mr. Molotov: I have one more question. In the language as it stands now it applies not only to negotiable instruments but also to the provisions of the Annex. Is that the meaning of the language?

Mr. Bevin: There is nothing else left in the Annex.

Secretary Byrnes: The negotiable instrument is included, and I call it to your attention.

Mr. Molotov: But still the language as proposed by the American Delegation did not extend to a certain single point but to the whole.

Secretary Byrnes: That is true. It was meant to apply to these several proposals that were offered by the United Kingdom Delegation. Now the only one which has been adopted is negotiable instruments. But if hereafter we should include any one or two of the other proposals which have been offered by the British Delegation, then we would have to ask that this apply to them.

Mr. Molotov: In connection with the observation made by the Soviet Delegation, it is anxious to give further study to this question.

Annex 8⁶²

Mr. Bevin: Annex 8. This is on judgments. The proposal was adopted by the Conference with 15 votes and 3 abstentions, England and France voting against. The French proposal was not voted on by the Conference. Has the French Delegation any observations?

M. Couve de Murville: Mr. Chairman, I confess that the French Delegation is not very happy about the text voted by the Conference, but considering the great majority of votes cast by member States we feel that we should adhere to it, following the example set by you yesterday.

Mr. Bevin: I also accept the resolution which was proposed by the United States, supported by the Union of the Soviet Republics, and therefore I withdraw any opposition to the adoption of the majority decision.

Secretary Byrnes: The Soviet-American bloc was supported by the Peace Conference.

Mr. Molotov: It is not bad.

Mr. Bevin: That was agreed. Now I have got to the end of the paper. Do you desire me to go back to the beginning again or adjourn?

Secretary Byrnes: I suggest we adjourn.

Mr. Bevin: Is that agreed; Now what time is the next meeting?

Secretary Byrnes: Friday.

Mr. Bevin: Friday at 3:30. There are some small points referred to the Deputies. Shall they meet while we are not meeting? Perhaps they could meet Friday morning.

Mr. Molotov: Not everything is ready.

M. Couve de Murville: Shall we go back to the Italian Treaty or start with the preliminary examination of other things?

Mr. Bevin: I understood we are to go back on Friday, when we meet, to the Italian Treaty on the points outstanding.

Secretary Byrnes: Yes.

Mr. Bevin: I thought that was our decision earlier.

Secretary Byrnes: That is right.

Mr. Bevin: We will adjourn until 3:30 on Friday.

(The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.)

54. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see Record of Decisions, infra.
55. The Italian representatives were Ambassador Tarchiani and Count Nicolo Carandini, Italian Ambassador to the United Kingdom. The Yugoslav representatives were Foreign Minister Simić and Sava Kosanovic, the Yugoslav Ambassador in the United States.
56. Foreign Minister Simić’s statement is printed separately as C.F.M. (46) (NY) 5, November 6, 1946, p. 1031.
57. Ambassador Tarchiani’s statement is printed separately as C.F.M. (46) (NY) 8, November 6, 1946, p. 1038.
58. Beginning at this point, the Council of Foreign Ministers resumed its consideration of the unagreed articles set forth in the Record of Recommendations by the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, vol. iv, pp. 889–956. Article 6, Part B, is printed ibid., p. 914.
59. Article 68 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, vol. iv, p. 28.
60. Annex 7, Part 3, of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, which was adopted by the Paris Peace Conference without modification; for text, see vol. iv, p. 57.
61. The reference here is to the following proposal by the United States Delegation: “Having regard to the legal system of the United States of America, the provisions of Annex 7 will not apply as between the United States and Italy.” In the Draft Treaty submitted by the Drafting Committee to the Deputies on October 25, the proposal was quoted as Annex VII, Part 5.
62. The United States proposal supported by the Soviet Union for Annex 8, Part B, which was adopted by the Peace Conference, is included in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, vol. iv, p. 58, as are the French and United Kingdom proposals thereto.