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, Fourth Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 8, 1946, 3:30 p.m.⁷⁵

New York, November 8, 1946, 3:30 p.m.

secret
USDEL(CFM) (46) (NY) 4th Meeting

Agenda for the Meeting

Mr. Molotov: Can we begin? As far as I understand at our previous meeting, we completed the consideration of the recommendations, and now we shall have to pass on to the proposals which do not fall within the category of recommendations.

No objection? (None)

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, may I say that is a correct statement about agreement at our last meeting, and if the Chairman is anxious to pursue the questions as to which there were no recommendations, I shall not object, but I did want to submit to the Council that it has occurred to me since the last meeting that when we have gone through these questions in the Italian treaty and the recommendations as to that treaty, that it might be wise then to go on to the recommendations in the other treaties to see how many of the recommendations we can agree to.

I suggest it at this time so that if my colleagues should be of the same opinion that, while we are discussing these matters that were not recommended by the Peace Conference, the staff might send for our papers in the Rumanian treaty, so that later in this meeting we could go on with that.

Mr. Molotov: I did not quite understand what is being suggested. Is the proposal that we now pass on to the consideration of the Rumanian treaty or is the proposal for us to dispose of the questions of the Italian treaty first and then go on to the Rumanian treaty?

Mr. Byrnes: It would be satisfactory to me either way. In as much as the Chairman has suggested that we take up the questions in the Italian treaty where there were no recommendations but which in the opinion of members should be discussed, that is all right; but when we have passed them over, I thought we could then proceed to the other treaty instead of returning to the open questions that have already been discussed.

Mr. Molotov: Certainly. As to the Soviet Delegation, we are prepared, we have made ready to complete the questions of the Italian treaty first and then we might go on to the Rumanian.

Mr. Byrnes: All that I mean is this: Without returning to again discuss the questions in the Italian treaty which we discussed during the previous meetings, that before going to a second discussion of those questions, we see what we can agree to in the other treaties.

Mr. Molotov: (Indicated agreement by nodding his head “yes”.)

It seems to me that it is possible now for us to accept this last suggestion made by Mr. Byrnes, namely, that we first complete the consideration of the remaining points regarding the Italian treaty and then without returning to the second consideration of these points in the Italian treaty pass on to the consideration of the Rumanian.

We will then proceed with the consideration of the remaining points in the Italian treaty.

Are there any observations on the first 13 Articles?

Mr. Bevin: There is a point, Mr. Chairman, in Article 3, isn’t there? I understand there is a French point on Article 3.

Mr. Molotov: It seems to me to be the proper course in the second stage of the discussion to take up Articles 3, 4, and 16 together.

M. Couve de Murville: It seems to me that the question raised by Mr. Bevin is a very slight difference on the description of the French line. It is a very small point, that is whether the French line should cut the main road or not? I think the question is so small that it can be dealt with with other questions pertaining to the frontier.

Mr. Molotov: Is it acceptable for us to take up simultaneously Articles 3, 4 and 16 when we come to discussion in our second stage of Article 16?

Mr. Byrnes: I think it would be wiser to consider them all together.

Mr. Molotov: No objection? (None)

The Soviet Delegation has no observations to offer as regards the first 14 Articles and that is why I asked, that is why I take up the first 13 Articles at once and ask whether there are any observations on them on the part of other Delegations.

Mr. Byrnes: Does that mean that there is agreement as to 10 (a)?

Mr. Molotov: Let me see.

Mr. Byrnes: The Austro-Italian treaty?

Mr. Molotov: This point remains in dispute. We have already discussed it. I only refer to those Articles which we have not discussed.

Mr. Byrnes: All right.

Article 14 of the Treaty With Italy

Mr. Molotov: As to Article 14, then, as we know on this question an amendment was submitted by the Yugoslavian Delegation at the Conference. This amendment was not adopted because it did not receive the majority. For its part the Soviet Delegation thinks that this amendment is a wise one and the Soviet Delegation would be prepared to accept, to support this amendment, but if my colleagues do not think it advisable to accept this amendment the Soviet Delegation will not insist on the consideration of this question.

I shall recall that Article 14 reads as follows:

“Italy is obliged to take all the measures necessary to insure that all persons under the Italian jurisdiction without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion should enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of speech, press, and publications, religious worship, political convictions, and public meetings.”⁷⁶

To this Article the Yugoslav Delegation suggested that the following words be added:

“Equally the right to receive education in native tongue.”

The Soviet Delegation considers this addition wise, but if the other Delegates did not think so, the Soviet Delegation does not insist on the consideration of this.

Seven voted for this amendment, 12 against, and 2 abstained.

I take it that no one supports the discussion of this point and so let us pass on to the next item.

Mr. Byrnes: Very good.

Article 14(a)⁷⁷

Mr. Molotov: The next Article is 14 (a). This was an additional Article. It says that Italy should be obligated not to persecute persons who at the time the Peace Treaty with Italy was under discussion took up their stand in favor of the cession of certain territory to one of the associated or Allied states, as well as those of her citizens or members of her armed forces who deserted from the Italian Army or who joined the Allied Forces or who joined the struggle against the occupation authorities, and the Soviet Delegation supports this proposal and deems it advisable to insert it in the treaty.

At the Conference 10 Delegations voted for it, 10 against, and one Delegation abstained. Among those Delegations who voted in favor of this proposal and out of those present here were the Soviet Delegation and the French Delegation. It would be proper for us to lend moral support to those who, while they remained citizens of Italy during the period of the discussion of the controversial issues, took up their stand in favor of one of the associated or Allied Powers, or who were forced to desert from the Italian Army, which at that time was hostile to the Allies, or who participated in the struggle against the occupation authorities, and it would be not only in the interest of the persons mentioned but also in the interest of all the Allied countries to make sure that these persons are not persecuted, and therefore I move that we adopt Article 14 (a), the acceptance of which would improve the treaty.

I must add that during the discussion of this Article in the Political Commission for Italy, 13 Delegations voted in favor of this Article, among them Belgium, ByeloRussia, USSR, Brazil, Ethiopia, Greece, France, India, Netherlands, Poland, Czechoslovakia, UK, Yugoslavia. One Delegation abstained and only 6 votes were cast against this proposal. That is another proof of the fact that the majority of the members of this Commission considered this Article to be acceptable when it was discussed there in detail.

M. Couve de Murville: Mr. Chairman, in the name of the French Delegation, I wish to support the proposal that was just made that Article 14–A be approved by the Council. The French Delegation has voted in favor of this Article both at the Commission and in the Plenary Conference. The aim of this Article, we believe, is a fair one. It is to grant amnesty to all who remained in Italy but who during the troubled period of the war have favored the Allies or have undertaken an action in favor of or in support of these Allies. If this Article was accepted, I would however suggest that it be referred to the Drafting Committee for final drafting since I think that in its present form, the draft and especially Paragraph b may not be fully satisfactory.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, as I read this amendment, I do not think it provides what the French representative has just stated as his views. The first paragraph does not grant amnesty to people who during the war gave aid to the Allied cause. It provides that proceedings shall not be taken against persons who expressed themselves in favor of their locality being ceded to any Allied or associated power. Article 14, which has been agreed to, provides specifically that Italy should take all measures to secure the fundamental freedoms including freedom of expression. The right of freedom of expression would certainly include the right to express one’s self as to the determination of the territorial dispute. The objection of the United States Delegation was that inasmuch as we guarantee to all freedom of expression, we should not select an expression as to one subject and exclude all other subjects. Nor did we think it wise to emphasize an expression of opinion as to one subject when we were protecting the rights of the people to express their views on all subjects. Now, as to the second paragraph, paragraph b, my opinion is that that is not specifically covered by Article 14, and I would have no objection to including that provided it was amended. The amendment as it now stands provides that the Italian Government shall not take any proceedings against a member of the armed forces who deserted from the Italian Army. I think that would be very wrong. The Italian Government should have the right to take steps against a man who deserted for some causes. This would prevent the Italian Government from taking proceedings against a deserter for any cause. If the wording were changed so that it read, “Italian nationals or members of the armed forces who deserted from the Italian Army in order to join Allied military units,” I have no objection to the proposal of submitting it to the Deputies to consider if paragraph b is considered, but I could not agree to paragraph a.

Mr. Bevin: In the Drafting Committee, we had a paragraph dealing with this which read, “Italy must not prosecute or molest any person on account of their sympathies or performance of any action to facilitate the execution of the armistice or the present treaty.” That was objected to by the Soviet Delegation and the U.S. Delegation and I withdrew it. Then in the Commission, we didn’t actually propose it because of the insistence on the present wording, but we would have proposed the amendment which probably would have met it. And if it went to the Deputies, I should be willing to put this forward for consideration. I agree with the U.S. Delegation in regard to the words, “deserted from the Italian Army,” as being much too broad and will place the Italian Government in great difficulty.

Mr. Molotov: I think that we should accept Mr. Byrnes’ proposal to the effect that paragraph (b) of Article 14–A be referred to the Deputies with instructions to work to improve upon it on the lines as suggested by Mr. Byrnes, and as it becomes clear now, this is in harmony with our common desire. The Soviet Delegation will not insist on the acceptance of paragraph (a) though the Soviet Delegation considers it to be acceptable. Lastly, I should like to assure the British Delegate that on this subject, the views of the Soviet Delegation have not undergone any change. As to the wording which was called to mind by Mr. Bevin, I must check up on the text of this proposal to see what in it gave rise to objections, to misgivings at the time this question was discussed during the session of the Council in London. To be short, I wish to submit my proposal as follows: Namely, that we should refer paragraph (b) of Article 14–A to the Deputies for consideration, and the Deputies be instructed to submit a draft for approval to the Council. I think no one will object if other Delegations may wish to present their additional suggestions for the consideration by the Deputies as has been contemplated by Mr. Bevin. Is there any objection to that?

M. Couve de Murville: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection in principle to the course as suggested although I must say that I am not convinced that subparagraph (a) was useless. In fact, it is possible that in the future the objections coming in in subparagraph (a) will be covered by Article 14. It is also proper for a national to have taken part in activity asking reunion of a part of the national territory to another state. I am thinking in particular of the South Tyrol where we have received several petitions from the inhabitants in favor of a reunion of the territory to Austria. This petition might be considered punishable in the eyes of the Italian law and therefore, I agree I have no objection to the question being referred to the Deputies provided it is studied there as a whole. This is in connection with the British proposal.

Mr. Molotov: I associate myself with the remarks made by M. Couve de Murville. Can we pass on to the next Article?

New Article Prohibiting Fascist Organizations

Mr. Molotov: The next Article, which was discussed at the Conference, is a new Article to be inserted between Article 14 and 15. This Article reads as follows:

“Italy undertakes not to permit the existence and activity on Italian territory of organizations whether political, military, or para-military, as well as other organizations which have as their aim denial to the people of their democratic rights.”

“Italy shall not have in the government service and within the organization, carrying out public functions, active participants or former active members of the fascist party.”⁷⁸

As we know, other peace treaties contain similar articles regarding the ban on fascist organizations. The Soviet Delegation believes that it is all the more necessary to insert such an article in the Italian treaty and, therefore, the Soviet Delegation supports the proposal to insert this article in the Italian peace treaty.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, the amendment referred to is included in the Balkan treaties, upon the motion of the Soviet Delegation. We offered in the Council, the United States Delegation expressed the view that it was not necessary to be—we did not want it and the Soviet Delegation insisted upon it. We agreed then that it should be inserted in the other treaties. No one of us urged that it be included in the Italian treaty and the Council of Ministers agreed that it should not be and it was not even sent to the Conference by the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Conference did not submit a recommendation that it should be included, therefore, I suggest that as the Council has agreed not to include it and the Conference did not recommend it, that we ought to leave it out.

M. Couve de Murville: I wish to say that we voted against this Article at the Paris Conference, not because we have objection in principle but because we felt the question had already been settled by the Foreign Ministers when the treaty was drafted and, therefore, it might have been an alteration. If other members of the Council can agree now on the insertion of this article we have no objection except as regards paragraph 2 in which we think there is a difference of application.

Mr. Molotov: As a matter of fact, a similar proposal, to be more accurate, a proposal on the same subject was made in London but in a somewhat different form.⁷⁹ On the other hand, throughout the lengthy discussions of the Italian peace treaty neither the Soviet Delegation or any other member of the Council made a proposal on this subject and it was only when other delegations at the Paris Conference called attention to the fact that a proposal was made. I wish to call attention to the fact that in addition to the Soviet Union, 8 other delegations voted in favor of this proposal and there is a corresponding article regarding the ban on fascist organizations in the Italian surrender terms, Article 13, and if this article will be lacking in the Italian peace treaty this will not be quite understandable and, therefore, it will be wise and proper to include in the peace treaty for Italy some mention regarding the ban on fascist organizations. The Soviet Delegation agrees with the views expressed by the French Delegation as to the exclusion of the second paragraph while retaining the first part of the draft. If the proposal is acceptable to him, to retain first part of the draft while leaving out the second part, then I think we could instruct our Deputies to work out the article in question.

Mr. Bevin: The difficulty I am in is that we acceded to putting this in the Rumanian treaty, as Mr. Byrnes said, at the request of the Soviet Delegation, but we have never had before these two provisions in regard to the Italian treaty. If you want to make it clear you shouldn’t have fascist organizations it would be possible to take from the first word to “democratic rights” and stop there.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, the Council did not offer this proposal. The Conference voted against it by a vote of 10 to 9. My feeling about it is that it is unnecessary and unwise because the present government of Italy has enacted into law a provision prohibiting the formation, the existence of any such organization. All of us want to give encouragement to the democratic government of Italy and I think the adoption of such a provision would be unfortunate in its effect upon the democratic government of Italy. Now, in between, we have already provided in Article 54 that personnel other than those forming part of the Italian army or Carabiniere shall not receive any form of military training. Now, as to the army and police force that is authorized, we have an additional provision in 46A which provides that in no case shall any officer or non-commissioned officer of former fascist militia or former fascist republican army be admitted, with officer’s or non-commissioned officer’s rank, to the Navy, Army, or Air Forces.⁸⁰ So there can be no organization having military training other than the army of 180,000, and in that army of 180,000 no man can be an officer or non-commissioned officer who has had any connection with the fascist organization of the past. Then, in addition, there is the law of Italy prohibiting any future organization of the prohibited character. Now, there is one other provision in it in the last words of the first paragraph that prohibits conducting propaganda hostile to any of the United Nations. I do not know how it is intended to enforce that provision and what will be determined to constitute propaganda against some member of the United Nations, but it seems to me that if we are going to give encouragement to the government of Italy that we must have some confidence in their government and it is unnecessary to add to the provisions that are already in the treaty along this line. We have declared that we look forward to Italy entering the United Nations. If she enters the United Nations, certainly we could not have fascist organizations and such organizations with military training without having them construed inimical to peace.

Mr. Molotov: In this connection I should like to make a few remarks as to the statement made by Mr. Byrnes with regard to Article 54. I must say that this article bears no relation whatsoever upon the matter we are now discussing. This article refers to the personnel of the Italian army.

As regards Article 46–A, it also bears no relation to the question under discussion, but it relates to Article 54 which concerns the personnel of the Italian army and we adopted it because we considered it wise to have special mention of the fact in the Treaty that no members of the former Fascist militia or the former Fascist Republic Army be admitted with officers’ rank to the armed forces of the new Italian democracy.

But this is not sufficient. I wish to call attention to Article 30 in the surrender terms for Italy.⁸¹ Article 30 states that “the Italian Government shall agree to comply with any further instructions regarding the disbandment of Fascist organizations or their control over their funds and the eradication of Fascist ideology”. Approximately the same provisions are contained in Article 31 of the armistice terms at the end of it.

I recall that the Soviet Government did not take part in the drafting of the armistice terms for Italy, which were drafted by representatives of the United States of America and Great Britain. However, they consider it as essential to provide for further instructions that are to be complied with by the Italian Government as regards the prohibition of Fascist organizations, the eradication of Fascist ideology, and the ban on Fascist training. These provisions are in our view correct and we ought to remember them when we are drafting a peace treaty for Italy.

As to the actual situation existing now in Italy in this respect, approximately 2 days ago the New York newspapers published a report describing Fascist risings and demonstrations in the southern parts of Italy, demonstrations where the members of which shouted, “Long live II Duce.”

Facts are also known of the distribution of Fascist literature and the seizure, though temporary, of a radio station. There is no reason to ignore the existence of Fascist elements in the present-day Italy. Accordingly, the Soviet Delegation considers it necessary to include in the Italian Peace Treaty an article prohibiting Fascist organizations in that country.

The democratic government of Italy cannot have any objection to this because it will only be helpful to the Italian Government and no difficulties will arise from the fact that the Allies have emphasized how important this objective is. And consequently, on the basis of the discussion that took place, and in accordance with the suggestion made by M. Couve de Murville, the Soviet Delegation suggests that the second part of the draft proposed at the Paris Conference be deleted as to the first paragraph, which also gave rise to doubts in the minds of Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Bevin. The Soviet Delegation suggests that we exclude the last part of this paragraph and then this paragraph will read as follows:

“Italy shall undertake not to permit the existence and activities on Italian territory of Fascist organizations, politically, military, or para-military, as well as any other organizations pursuing the aim of depriving the people of its democratic rights.”

It seems to me that this short language will be found satisfactory by us all and all that is necessary to include in the Peace Treaty with Italy. In this article can the short language be accepted?

Mr. Byrnes: So far as the United States Delegation is concerned, the elimination of the last words does remove some of our objection, but I wish to say this: There could be no question about the armistice provisions because the armistice was agreed to at a time when there was no doubt about the Fascist organization. They could be easily identified. My fear about this proposal in this treaty and in the other treaties is that there is great disagreement about what constitutes a Fascist organization and what individual is a Fascist.

Now in the United States when you don’t agree with a man politically you call him a reactionary, and in some places where some people don’t like a person they call them Communists, and there are some places where they call a man a Fascist. It depends upon the individual; if he happens to differ with you he charges that you belong to the party he doesn’t like.

The only definition we have of “reactionary” is a fellow who doesn’t agree with you. I realty fear when we have in this language here “a political organization of a Fascist character” that in Rumania, Bulgaria as well as Italy we will have people who disagree with their neighbors complaining to the United Nations that here is an organization which calls itself the democratic party or the republican party but at a matter of fact it is a fascist party.

I submit really it is serious. We guarantee these people freedom of expression in the Balkan States and Italy and then we say at the same time, if you have a political organization we disagree with it will be considered to be of fascist character.

I am entirely willing to pass it for the time being if someone can suggest some language that would give a little assurance to these people whose futures we are providing for here. I will be glad to consider the amendment but I am afraid of it.

Mr. Bevin: Well, that is almost exactly the thing that troubles me. I think we have a general idea what a fascist is, but somebody said to me the other day that they were so sorry that Prime Minister Attlee had now become a fascist. I inquired what led them to believe he had become a fascist and I was told that he was riding in the coach, on Victory Day, with Mr. Churchill.

If the Soviet Delegation feels very keen about this it is a good precedent to adopt something that has been rejected sometimes with the hope that this principle be accepted sometime elsewhere.

Could the Deputies look into it and connect it with the past? That is to say, with the armistice. In the armistice is defined what it is, what it means, in Article 30. It is there indicated what we are talking about. One could say, “We have been undertaking under the armistice through so-and-so, and having done it have undertaken not to allow the creation of such organizations.”

Then take the short phrase which was the one that Molotov suggested. I don’t think it is quite so wounding to Italy if we show confidence in her and refer to the terms as laid down in the armistice. I think that would be more dignified and it might well be that instead of going in as an article—I haven’t made up my mind, but I have been looking at the draft—it might really go in the preamble probably. The advantage of that would be it would link it to the fascism which we destroyed and not to the new fascism which somebody creates; that is, what somebody calls fascism in the future.

What I would be interested in is to look into it on those lines to see whether anything can be done to meet the Soviet Delegation.

Mr. Byrnes: I would agree to that.

Mr. Molotov: I should like to point out that the proposal made by me was to exclude those parts of this Article which were considered as unacceptable by the French Delegate and the British Delegate. By doing so I hope that Mr. Byrnes, who also had some misgiving about this Article, would find it possible to accept this amended Article and thus it would become possible for us to reach a unanimous decision on that. If the amendments suggested by the French and British Delegations were accepted in their entirety, I do not know whether there would be any need for us to discuss the definition of a reactionary, Communist, and similar things. I think it is not advisable for us to undertake such a discussion now.

I do not know whom Mr. Bevin had in mind as the man who talked with him about Mr. Attlee. It would be interesting to know who this man was who could say such absurd things about Mr. Attlee.

We all recognize that Fascism existed in Italy and that there are still Fascist elements in Italy now, and there can be hardly any doubt in our minds that Fascist elements in Italy are trying now to revive, and therefore I think it would be incorrect for us to shut our eyes to this and to the importance of it.

Only recently we issued a declaration which emphasized the necessity to put an end to the survival of Fascism. All this goes to show that this is another question, an important question, and therefore I move that we try to find an acceptable wording of this Article.

If the wording of this Article as amended now appears acceptable to the French and British Delegations and provided they accept it, I hope Mr. Byrnes will also agree to it. At least the Soviet Delegation deem it highly desirable.

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Bevin had moved that in the matter of the referral to the Deputies it would be suggested that they try to draft language which would connect up with the language of the Armistice Agreement, and the United States Delegation agreed to that proposal.

Mr. Bevin: We should incorporate the words “democratic rights”.

Article 24(a)

Mr. Molotov: I have no objection. So we pass on to the next Article. I have a proposal to make in connection with Article 21. Provided that no one of the Delegates has any observations to make in connection with the other Articles, we shall pass on—I mean, no one up to Article 24(a). Are there any observations on the Articles, included up to Article 24(a)?

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, what is the subject? I do not find it.

Mr. Molotov: It concerns the Yugoslav proposal of the return to Albania of the gold reserve.⁸²

In this connection I should like to observe that the Soviet Delegation will not insist on this subject, though the Soviet Delegation voted for the acceptance of this proposal at the Conference. We think it is enough to have what is said in Article 65.

Article 25(a)

If there are no observations, then permit me to pass on to Article 25 (a). As we know, on this subject at the Conference, the proposal was made to add a new Article after Article 25, Article 25(a). A proposal was made to add an Article which reads as follows:

“In the application of the present treaty Albania will enjoy the rights of an Associated Power.”

This proposal, as we know, was not adopted at the Conference;⁸³ nevertheless, in the view of the Soviet Delegation it is worthy of serious consideration by the Council of Foreign Ministers, and I shall go on to set forth the reason which lead the Soviet Delegation to hold this view.

The fact is that the whole section of the treaty, Section 5, is devoted to Albania. This section consists of 6 Articles, from Article 21 to Article 26, and it is natural that in this connection the question arises, in what capacity we shall have to regard Albania while we devote to her a whole section of the treaty, of the Peace Treaty.

It will be just for us to provide for Albania to enjoy the rights accorded to an Associated Power in the application of the treaty and thereby to enable Albania to associate herself to join the treaty after its signature by other Powers. I shall not cite any of the political reasons in defense of this which were time and again used in the Paris Conference by the Soviet and other Delegations.

On the other hand, we rejected the proposal of Greece not to invite Albania to the Conference. All the other Delegations considered it right and proper to give hearing to the views of Albania because they thought that Albania had the right to present them to the Conference and this is quite natural because 6 Articles of the Peace Treaty are devoted to Albania and besides the Articles are in defense of Albania’s interests.

The Conference added in Article 23 a reference to the fact that the Economic Articles of this Treaty will be construed with regard to Albania in the same manner as with regard to the Allied and Associated Powers.⁸⁴

The draft peace treaty submitted by the Council of Foreign Ministers to the Peace Conference did not contain that provision, and we all agreed that the recommendation of the Conference to include this provision was right.

In addition I want to call attention to the fact that Article 73,⁸⁵ which was approved by the Conference, also refers to the fact that Albania, as regards Articles 65, 68, 71, and Annex 8, Albania as well as Norway are to be treated in the same way as the Allied and Associated Powers. This Article contains reference to the fact that all these Articles enumerated by me and the Annex will be applied with regard to Albania and Norway in the same manner as to the Allied and Associated Powers, and this provision, which was not contained originally in the draft submitted by the Council to the Conference was included by the Conference with the agreement of our four Delegations.

On behalf of what I said, the Soviet Delegation considers it right for us to give our support to the proposal for the insertion of Article 25 (a) in the Treaty, the Article in which it is suggested that a provision be made that in the application of the present Treaty Albania shall enjoy the rights of the Allied and Associated powers. The Soviet Delegation calls for the acceptance of this Article. I should like to add another argument in favor of this proposal. This is the last proposal which the Soviet Delegation makes in addition to the proposals contained in the draft treaty.

Mr. Bevin: The view of the British Delegation is that when Article 73 was carried Albania had been treated very well and that the condition had been met. The other reference—and we voted against Article 25–A, and an overwhelming majority of the Conference took the same view. I really think it ought to be kept the way it is.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, the United States Delegation feels that in as much as the Council has heretofore decided that the governments to be designated as Allied and Associated Powers did not include Albania, and subsequently the matter was submitted to the Conference, and the Conference by a vote of 14 to 6 voted against including it, it should not be included.

M. Couve de Murville: The French Delegation has already explained in the Italian Commission at the Paris Conference that France has formal diplomatic relations with Albania, and therefore, would have no objection to adopting this proposal. On the other hand, we fully realize that other members of this Council do not maintain such relations with Albania, and that therefore, it would be difficult to impose upon them such an action with the insertion of this provision if they oppose it. That is why we abstained in the vote of the Commission. I see that we are mentioned here as voting in accord with the proposal, but I believe this to be an error in the minutes.

Mr. Molotov: I should like to point out that the absence of diplomatic relations cannot be regarded as an obstacle to the fact that Albania should enjoy the rights of an associated power. The Soviet Union, for instance, has no diplomatic relations with India, but nevertheless, we did not object to her participating in the Conference and signing the treaties. It was pointed out that a list of states was drawn up, states which were to be considered as associated powers. I am bound to make a correction. No such list was ever drawn up. The only list that was drawn up was the list containing the countries which were to take part in the Conference as its members. But no list was drawn up specifying the countries which were to be regarded as associated powers. No such special list was drawn up. The treaty contained a whole section, Section 5, dealing with Albania as well as Section 6 dealing with Ethiopia as expected to sign the treaty and what this treaty contains will be binding on Ethiopia, but Albania is not expected to sign the treaty and in this connection, the question is as to whether the provisions of the treaty will be binding on Albania if Albania does not sign the treaty. Albania has no objection to the provisions as they stand now in the treaty, and it appears that Albania considers them acceptable. However, from the formal point of view, an embarrassing situation will arise if Albania will not be able to sign the treaty. That is why it appears to us that Article 25–A, which contains the provision that Albania should enjoy the rights of an associated power is appropriate and justified, because this Article clarifies the whole issue and thus if we expect it, the provisions of the treaty will become binding upon Albania after Albania has signed it. And in our view, the signature of Albania over the treaty will be useful and will make it possible to regard this issue fully clarified both from the point of view of its substance and as far as its formal aspects are concerned, if you include Article 25–A.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, Albania would, of course, have the right to adhere to the treaty, but under the Moscow Agreement, paragraph 4 of the first chapter, it is provided the final text of the respective peace treaties so drawn up will be signed by representatives of the states represented at the Conference which were at war with the enemy states in question. By our agreement at Moscow, Albania was not represented at the Conference, and therefore, under the Moscow Agreement, she would not be eligible to sign the treaty.

M. Couve de Murville: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the difficulty comes from the fact that in Article 77,⁸⁶ which is the Accession Clause, it is said that any other member of a United Nation may adhere, but if Albania were therefore a member of the United Nations, the question would not be raised. The difficulty comes from the fact that Albania is not at present a member of the UN. We see, therefore, that the question is essentially a legal one, and it may be good therefore to have it studied by our legal experts of each delegation to establish purely what is Albania’s situation with regard to the provision concerning her in the peace treaty.

Mr. Molotov: M. Couve de Murville is right when he refers to Article 77, but I should like to draw your attention to Article 78⁸⁷ which in its second part says that with regard to each of the Allied or associated powers, the instruments of which will be deposited that thereafter, the treaty will enter into force from the date of the deposit, and I wonder in this connection whether in regard to Albania, it is clear when this peace treaty will come into force as provided for in Article 78. If Albania is not able to adhere to the treaty, then it is not clear when this peace treaty will come into force as far as Albania is concerned. As to the reference made by Mr. Byrnes to paragraph 4 of the Moscow decision, I should like to say that this paragraph specifies the countries which are to sign the peace treaties. There is no doubt that Albania as a country which did not take part in the Conference will not be able to sign the treaties, but I want to draw attention to the second part of this paragraph 4 of the Moscow decision, which says that after this the text of the treaties will be submitted to other United Nations which are in a state of war with the enemy state in question for signature and I wonder if this treaty is to be submitted to Albania as well. It seems it must be submitted and Albania should be thus given possibility to adhere to it and then Article 78 will become applicable to Albania as well.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I think under the last sentence of paragraph 4, that Albania could not qualify because it refers to the submission to the other United Nations and she is not a member of the United Nations which are at war with enemy states in question. I contend that so far as Albania is concerned Article 78 in the first paragraph provides that the treaty shall come into force immediately upon the deposit of ratification by France, UK, US, and the Soviet Republic. It comes into force and Italy is immediately required to comply with the provisions of this treaty insofar as Albania is concerned. And may I say this, if you now look at Section 5, Albania, the language requires Italy to do certain specific things in favor of Albania and that will become effective immediately upon the deposit of the ratification by the powers here represented.

Mr. Molotov: I should like to ask that a reply be given to my question, namely whether the second paragraph of Article 78 applies to Albania, the paragraph which reads that as regards each of the Allied or associated powers whose instruments of certification will be deposited the peace treaty will enter into force as from the date of deposit. I wonder whether this applies to Albania or not.

Secretary Byrnes: It is my opinion that the language being “each Allied or Associated Power” and Albania not being an Associated Power, that it is not required to deposit any ratification of the treaty. Albania must be covered by the first paragraph which specifically demands of Italy compliance with the provisions of the treaty upon the deposit of the ratification of these four governments.

Mr. Molotov: It is precisely for this reason that from the former point of view, Mr. Byrnes is right, that the situation rises where it is not clear when the treaty will become applicable to Albania under Article 78 and as regards the fact that this treaty becomes effective after the deposit of the instruments of certification by the four governments. Then it is clear that it does not apply to Albania because Albania did not participate and the question is not clear when this treaty becomes applicable to Albania in absence of special provision. And that is why I associate myself with the proposal made by M. Couve de Murville that this question be referred to the legal advisers.

Perhaps some of the delegations who have not yet expressed themselves will state now their views (looking at Mr. Bevin).

Mr. Bevin: If that applies to me, I bowed out in the first round, I thought it was adequately covered in Article 75. I don’t think we ought to do any more about it now. I should like to see an Italian treaty before I begin referring it to the juridical.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation has no more proposals.

Mr. Bevin: I think most of these things will be cleared up in the rest of the treaty.

Mr. Molotov: What are we to take up now? Shall we go on to the Rumanian treaty?

Annex 7 (1) and Annex 3⁸⁸

Mr. Bevin: Take the point outstanding on Annex 7—1, contracts. Annex 3 has never been discussed. The question of the ceded territories.

M. Couve de Murville: Couldn’t we refer to Annex 3 which never was really discussed by referring it to study by the Economic Committee? I think this would save time.

Mr. Bevin: I would agree on contracts. There is very little difference in principle, I think, in this matter, between us, and the Economic experts might be able to agree.

Mr. Molotov: My understanding is that there is a proposal to refer to the economic experts Annex 3 and contracts. Perhaps we could take a separate decision on both of them, first on Annex 3 and then on contracts. As I see it, there is no objection to Annex 3 being referred to the economic experts for consideration.

Secretary Byrnes: Absolutely none.

M. Couve de Murville: That is right.

Mr. Bevin: What about Annex 7, the unagreed part of Annex 7?

Mr. Molotov: I suggest that we also refer these questions for consideration of the economic experts. Two questions, contracts and prescriptions, should be referred to the economic experts.

Mr. Bevin: It is all in Annex 7.

Mr. Molotov: And miscellaneous, also. No objection? (None) It is an advantage that we did not leave our experts without work.

Article 64 (B)⁸⁹

M. Couve de Murville: I also suggest that we refer to the economic experts Article 64, paragraph B, which was approved in principle but should be carefully studied.

Mr. Molotov: No objection?

Secretary Byrnes: I’d like to know what it is about, is the subject reparations for other powers? I have no objection.

Mr. Molotov: No objection? And thus paragraph B, Article 64, reparations for other powers, is also being referred to the economic experts.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, that has been agreed to and I have no objection to it being submitted merely for the purpose of drafting.

Mr. Molotov: Now we shall pass on to the Rumanian treaty.

Mr. Bevin: When do we get back to the things we haven’t acted on?

Secretary Byrnes: I suggested earlier that we consider the recommendations of the peace conference in the other treaties and that we do that before coming back to have a second argument on the proposals contained in the Italian treaty which we have already discussed and have not agreed upon.

Mr. Molotov: No objection? (None)

Sometimes it is necessary, you know, to put the papers in order.

In the first place, Article 3A.⁹¹ I have in mind Articles 3 and 4 of the treaty.

Mr. Bevin: In this case, I think it is a case of emphasis because of there being so many Jews affected in Rumania and the effort made to try and get some special protections for the Jews in this country. The Conference was 14 to 7 in favor of it, wouldn’t it be nice if we adopted a majority resolution now and again?

Mr. Molotov: Not a single group of the Rumanian population complains about this and has not approached us on the subject and why should we accept a decision which is not dictated by necessity, and the interests of the Jewish population in Rumania are fully safeguarded by Articles 3 and 4.

Mr. Bevin: If there isn’t so much in it, why oppose it? All I know is that the Jews in Paris were very keen on getting it in this treaty.

Mr. Molotov: It does not contain a single word about Jews, in this Article. Perhaps I missed it.

Mr. Bevin: Well, I think you all know what it means, who it applies to.

Secretary Byrnes: The United States is in favor of its being included in the treaty in accordance with the recommendation of the Conference.

Mr. Molotov: Such being the case, there is no enmity among us, let’s pass on to the nest question. The following Article is Article 14.⁹² The Soviet Delegation suggests that we keep this Article in the previously agreed wording.

Secretary Byrnes: I do not intend to discuss it at length, we have heretofore discussed it, the Conference adopted it by more than the two-thirds vote, 15 to 6, and I hope that the Council will retain it in the treaty.

Mr. Bevin: I support that.

Mr. Molotov: We remain in disagreement on this part. Comes now Article 24.⁹²

Mr. Bevin: I argued this very forcibly on the Italian Treaty and I take exactly the same position on this Treaty. I am willing to accept 75 percent.

Mr. Molotov: What other proposals are there?

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I think the same provision will appear in several treaties. It is probably true the same disposition will be made of them. If we can’t agree at this time we ought to go on to the next article.

Mr. Molotov: It appears that this applies to all the subparagraphs of this article which remain outstanding.

Mr. Bevin: 8–C I think is the special one. It was carried by 14 to 6.⁹³

Secretary Byrnes: It was recommended by two-thirds vote and the United States failed to present its definition in the Treaty.

Mr. Molotov: To what paragraph do you refer?

Mr. Bevin: The additional subparagraph to 8–C, Article 24. It deals with the definition of ships.

Mr. Molotov: It does not appear which part is the first and which one is second.

Mr. Bevin: Paragraph 8–C says: “Property means all movable and immovable property whether tangible or intangible, including …”

Then you define ships without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions. “The property of the United Nations includes also sea and river vessels.”

Mr. Molotov: According to my information paragraph 8–C carried by 14 votes. The Soviet Delegation objects to this paragraph and considers that it is sufficient to have what is recorded in paragraph C and what was agreed upon by us prior to the Conference. The following paragraph is 24–B.

Mr. Bevin: I am not leaving this. You suggested that this was settled by us when we agreed on 8–C. I understand that this question of the definition of ships has always been open and the Committee endeavored to define it. It was never agreed that paragraph 8–C covered this problem. When Article 24 was dealt with the agreement of the United Kingdom Delegation to this paragraph was subject to the definition of the ships that were deemed to be covered thereby. We reserved on that and we have a majority of the Conference supporting it and now it is just turned down as if it had never been considered.

Mr. Molotov: It is not a question of the fact that this question was not raised, but that of the fact that the proposal contained in paragraph 8–C is not acceptable to the Soviet Delegation. My proposal is that we refer this question of the definition of term to a commission of experts.

Mr. Bevin: I would agree.

Mr. Molotov: So we pass to Article 24–B.⁹⁴

Mr. Bevin: This is another Jewish proposal, although the word “Jew” I think is not mentioned here. The Jewish organizations, I am told, attach the utmost importance to the second paragraph. With regard to Jewish property we have been urged to try and get this in, and it was carried by 14 to 7.

Mr. Molotov: There were cases when without prejudice to the interests of the work we excluded from the text of the Treaty certain proposals adopted by majority vote at the Conference. I suggest that this Article 24–B be included in this category.

Secretary Byrnes: The United States is in favor of keeping it in the Treaty.

Mr. Bevin: I should think to disregard a solemn decision like this would be treating the Conference almost with contempt. There was a solemn pledge given and a letter circulated that we would not arbitrarily reject decisions of this character taken by the Conference. These overwhelming majorities, we seem to be treating them as if the Conference never discussed it or almost never held it. It is most unfortunate.

Secretary Byrnes: Couldn’t we agree that if we can’t agree it would be wiser to go on and see if we can agree to any one and then come back to it another time?

Mr. Molotov: I agree to that, but I should like to state that in explanation my proposal was not due to any contempt on the part of the Soviet Delegation to any other delegation of the Conference. On the contrary, I think we should consider most carefully the recommendations on the proposal in question as already included in the Treaty and as already covered by other provisions. My suggestion is due to this fact precisely. Let us go on to the next article.

The next article is Article 27 [26?].⁹⁵

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, on this proposal at the Peace Conference the United States abstained. We have no objection to the proposal, on subparagraph 5, literary and property rights.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation also agrees with this article and additions that were adopted at the Conference.

Article 26 [27?].⁹⁶ On this subject there was not a two-thirds majority, but only a simple majority. It is real long and the Soviet Delegation submitted a proposal of its own on the subject, of which the Soviet Delegation considers unnecessary …⁹⁷

Secretary Byrnes: The United States is in favor of retention of the article as recommended by 13 votes to 6.⁹⁸

Mr. Bevin: I would remind the Council that this article is exactly the same as we put in for Italy.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation believes that with regard to Rumania, a small country, we should not accept necessarily all the articles which we accepted in the case of Italy.

Mr. Bevin: It is very difficult to distinguish in a matter of this kind.

Mr. Molotov: I do not deny that it may be difficult to distinguish between the great and small countries, but it is our duty to draw a distinction between a country like Italy, which was a partner of the Axis and a country like Rumania, which did not play such an active part in the war as Italy, which as we know was a close ally of Germany. This difference is well known.

On the other hand, Rumania is in economic straits now and the effects of the war are particularly acutely felt in Rumania, which was exploited by the Germans during the war. The Soviet Delegation considers, therefore, that we should appreciate this aspect of the matter.

The Soviet Delegation considers it necessary for us to draw, in certain cases, a distinction between small countries, such as Rumania, Bulgaria and Finland, and big countries.

Incidentally, for instance, in the case of Finland, the British Delegation applied a different criterion and we thought it was right. That is why we think we should draw a distinction between small and great countries.

In as much as there is no agreement on this subject, it appears that we should pass on to the next subject. Shall we go on with our meeting or adjourn?

Mr. Bevin: We should appreciate a rest greatly.

Mr. Byrnes: I am willing to do either one, go on or adjourn.

M. Couve de Murville: I am willing to do either.

Mr. Molotov: So we shall go on.

Now we pass on to Article 30.⁹⁹ This Article repeats our differences on the similar subject in the Italian Peace Treaty. In addition, there is a proposal of the Soviet Delegation on the subject which is not contained in the Italian draft Treaty.¹ I have in mind the proposal of the Delegation of the U.S.S.R. on paragraph 2 of the Article. This paragraph 2 is also contained in the draft peace treaty which was submitted to the Conference for consideration. The Soviet Delegation at present has considered it necessary to support its proposal.

Mr. Byrnes: I think the division, Mr. Chairman, should be treated as the Italian proposal is treated. It would be the same decision in each case.

After paragraph 2 we have a proposal which is adopted by 15 to 6, and the United States stands by the recommendation of the Conference.

Mr. Molotov: This disagreement remains, and permit me to pass onto Article 30 (a).²

Mr. Bevin: This was 13 to 6—has a serious effect in my country. It is a question of fair treatment and I am for its inclusion. No objection to being brought out—to anything a country may do, but to have the interests of the country wrecked by this process I think is very unfair treatment.

Mr. Byrnes: The United States thinks the Article should be included in the treaty.

Mr. Bevin: Nothing to what is being done on reparations or anything like that—It is a question of treatment by a Government of our nationals. Italy has now renounced trade on the one side—on the other side we are not being treated fairly in our trade arrangements.

Mr. Molotov: And the Soviet Delegation has considered the decision of the Conference unjust, unfair because this decision is in contradiction with normal conditions on the Rumanian market, and would have an adverse effect on reparations from Rumania which were laid down by our common agreement.

Thus, in the view of the Soviet Delegation it would be doubly unfair to accept the proposal contained in Article 30 (a). It is in contradiction with the decisions we adopted prior to the Conference. For this reason the Soviet Delegation is opposed to this Article.

Mr. Bevin: We have abundantly declared that we will not interfere with reparations, but we cannot stand for the treatment being dealt to us at the present time.

I fully realize what is apt to be adopted and we cannot be a party to it. We certainly cannot legalize it in a treaty.

Mr. Molotov: The sense of the proposal, which is contained in Article 30 (a), is to create certain privileges, certain privileged position for certain foreign owners in Rumania, and if this proposal is accepted it will need to double prices in Rumania. There will be certain prices for Rumanian nationals and on the other hand different prices for foreign owners there. This will create a greatly abnormal situation in Rumania, and in the view of the Soviet Delegation it is not possible in any way to agree to such a privileged position for any foreign owners in Rumania.

Mr. Bevin: I have not said a word that they should not pay their own nationals proper prices. What I say is, they have taken the equipment, they have taken the development there that has gone on. If they want to nationalize it, pay compensation for it, I should say nothing about it. But to do it as they are trying to do is an indirect and an unfair form of confiscation: We ought not to encourage an ex-enemy country against another Ally.

Mr. Molotov: It seems to me unfair to raise such charges against the Rumanian Government, charges which cannot be proved, by the way.

As to the proposal contained in Article 30 (b), this proposal means, implies a procedure which did not exist in Rumania before the war. This proposal means that it tends to create certain privileges for certain categories of foreign owners in Rumania, and what is more, the acceptance of this proposal will be tantamount to considerable deduction in the amount of reparations for the Soviet Union from Rumania, in spite of the fact that the amount of reparations and the terms of payment were the subject of agreement between us as well as with the Rumanian Government, between the Soviet and Rumanian Governments, and any departure from these terms will mean, will be to set one of the principal, fundamental principles of the Peace Treaty with Rumania, so the Soviet Delegation cannot take part.

Mr. Bevin: I think it is unfair that Great Britain should be asked to pay these by this process.

Mr. Molotov: Rumania shall be bound to pay them and we should not interfere with them.

We pass to Article 31.³ This is a question which we already considered in connection with the Italian treaty, and for this reason it seems to me at this moment there is no need to dwell on it.

Mr. Byrnes: The United States Delegation is in favor of its adoption but will have no objection to passing on if the Council cannot agree upon it.

Mr. Molotov: We pass to Article 34,⁴ dealing with the Danube. The Soviet Delegation holds that this Article has no bearing upon the Peace Treaty with Rumania, and therefore the Soviet Delegation is opposed to its insertion in the form in which it was adopted by the Conference.

Mr. Byrnes: The United States Delegation is in favor of the Article. Both paragraphs were adopted by a vote of ⅔ in the Peace Conference, and the United States hopes it may be—it will be included in the treaty.

Mr. Bevin: My Government feels very keenly about this because they feel (inaudible) The rights they have had to fight for they are now being deprived of.

Mr. Molotov: Not a single one of the peace treaties contains any decisions regarding a certain conference and there is no need to touch upon the conference that deals with the Danube in the Rumanian peace treaty. As to the question of the Danube, there is no reason to affirm that anyone has been wronged on the Danube. If we sign this peace treaty, this peace treaty will introduce no restrictions for anyone on the Danube. There is no reason to suppose that anyone’s rights will be impaired by the absence of the provision in the treaty.

Mr. Bevin: I am willing to take it out of the treaty if I can get an agreement among the four powers. Any step we have taken to deal with this problem has been rejected.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation believes that this question touched upon now by Mr. Bevin can be discussed independently of the treaty.

Mr. Bevin: Before I am willing to indulge in anything with the treaty, I should like to know what is going to take its place.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation considers that this Article is superfluous in the treaty. There is no agreement among us on this subject? Article 36.⁵ This Article deals with the same thing we discussed on the Danube [article of the?] peace treaty, and therefore, I think there is no need to have a discussion of it now.

Mr. Bevin: Can we adjourn now?

Mr. Molotov: I think it’s time.

Secretary Byrnes: I agree to adjourn. I would like to ask my colleagues if they see their way clear to meet in the morning instead of tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Molotov: I don’t know for certain, but it’s certain that there will be a meeting of the General Assembly tomorrow morning. If there is no meeting of the General Assembly, we shall have no objection.

Secretary Byrnes: Suppose we let it stand that we will meet unless we learn that there is a meeting of the General Assembly.⁶ If there is, we will not meet.

Mr. Molotov: You propose that we have two meetings tomorrow?

Secretary Byrnes: No, I do not want to meet in the afternoon. I understand the meeting of the General Assembly was first proposed for today and not tomorrow. And we meet in the morning at what time?

Mr. Molotov: 11 o’clock?

Secretary Byrnes: I am willing to say 10:30.

Mr. Molotov: No objection.

Secretary Byrnes: We meet at 10:30 unless we learn there is a meeting of the General Assembly in which case we do not meet.

Mr. Bevin: What time will we meet on Monday?

Secretary Byrnes: If we learn there is a meeting of the General Assembly, then we meet 10:30 Monday.

Mr. Molotov: I am told that the meeting of the General Assembly has been set for 11 o’clock and 4 o’clock tomorow.

Mr. Bevin: Then we will meet on Monday at 10:30.

(The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.)

75. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see Record of Decisions, infra.
76. The text quoted here varies slightly from that in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, vol. iv, p. 9.
77. Regarding article 14a, proposed to the Paris Peace Conference by the Yugoslav Delegation, see footnote 10, p. 984.
78. The proposed article quoted here appears to be a revision of an article jointly proposed by the Polish and Ukrainian Delegations to the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy of the Paris Peace Conference as document CP (IT/P) 69. September 21, 1946. The proposed article was rejected by the Political and Territorial Commission at its 33rd meeting on September 25, 1946: for summary of the proceedings of that meeting, see vol. iii, p. 553.

79. In document CFM (D) (46) 63, April 11, 1946. the Soviet Delegation suggested that the following two paragraphs be included in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy:

    • “a) Italy undertakes, insofar as she has not entirely done so. to dissolve all fascist organizations and those of a fascist type and not to tolerate in future the existence of such organizations.
    • “b) All members of the Fascist Party who have been more than nominal participants in its activities and all other persons hostile to the aims of the Associated Powers shall be removed from government and public employment and from responsible positions in important private enterprises.” (CFM Files, Lot M–88. Box 2065, Deputies Documents)

    After considerable discussion, the Deputies were unable to reach agreement on a provision in the draft Italian treaty for banning fascist institutions.

80. Article 46a is a new article adopted by the Paris Peace Conference and included in the Record of Recommendations by the Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, vol. iv, p. 900.
81. For text of the instrument of surrender of Italy, September 29, 1943, see Department of State Treaties and Other International Acts Series No. 1604, or 61 Stat. (3) 2742. For documentation regarding the overthrow of the Fascist regime in Italy and the Italian surrender, see Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. ii, pp. 314 ff.
82. Under consideration at this point were the Albanian proposals, supported by the Yugoslav Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, for new articles 24a and 24b. The proposed article 246 provided for the restitution of the gold reserves of the National Bank of Albania located in Italy. The proposals were rejected by the Economic Commission for Italy at its 33rd Meeting, October 2, 1946; for the summary of the proceedings at that meeting, see vol. iii, p. 630. See also the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, CP. (Plen) Doc. 26, vol. iv, p. 338.
83. The new article 25a, proposed by the Yugoslav Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, was rejected by the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy at its 34th Meeting, September 26, 1946; for summary of the proceedings at that meeting, see vol. iii, p. 562.
84. The new text of article 23 was included in the Record of Recommendations of the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, vol. iv, p. 898.
85. ibid., p. 906.
86. For the text of article 77 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, which was accepted by the Paris Peace Conference, see vol. iv, p. 36.
87. Ibid.
88. For texts of Annexes 7 and 3 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, see vol. iv, pp. 54 and 40, respectively.
89. According to the Record of Decisions of this meeting of the Council, infra, article 64, Part D, was under consideration at this point.
91. The text of the article under reference is included in the Record of Recommendations of the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, p. 920.
92. Ibid.
92. Ibid.
93. The reference here is to the vote on article 24, paragraph 8–c of the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania (vol. iv, p. 920), at the 39th Plenary Session of the Paris Peace Conference, October 10, 1946; for the Verbatim Record of that meeting, see vol. iii, p. 762.
94. According to the Record of Decisions of this meeting, infra, the article under consideration at this point was 24 bis; for the text, see the Record of Recommendations by the Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, p. 925.
95. ibid., p. 921.
96. ibid., p. 925.
97. This sentence has apparently been garbled and a portion omitted during the preparation of these minutes. The proposal under reference here is presumably the new draft article 27 submitted by the Soviet Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference and quoted in the Report on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania by the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland, vol. iv, p. 434.
98. The reference here is to the voting on the articles of the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania at the 39th Plenary Meeting of the Paris Peace Conference, October 10, 1946; for the Verbatim Record of that meeting, see vol. iii, p. 762.
99. See the Record of Recommendations by the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, pp. 922, 926.
1. The Soviet proposal under reference here was included in the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania referred to the Peace Conference by the Council of Foreign Ministers; for text, see vol. iv, p. 77.
2. The article under consideration at this point was 30 bis, ibid., p. 926.
3. Vol. iv, p. 922.
4. ibid., p. 923.
5. Vol. iv, p. 923.
6. The General Assembly of the United Nations held the Second Part of its First Session at Flushing, New York, October 23—December 16, 1946.