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, Seventh Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 12, 1946, 1:30 p.m. ⁹¹

New York, November 12, 1946, 1:30 p.m.

secret
USDEL(CFM) (46) (NY) 7th Meeting

Mr. Bevin: I will ask the Deputies to present their report.

Deputies’ Report

[Here follows the report of the Deputies as read by Mr. Dunn, the United States Deputy. The text is printed as an annex (page 1128) to the Record of Decisions of this meeting of the Council.]

Mr. Bevin: That is the Deputies’ report. Any objection?

Mr. Molotov: No objection.

M. Couve de Murville: (Indicated “no objection” by a nod of his head).

Secretary Byrnes: (Indicated “no objection” by a nod of his head).

Mr. Bevin: The first item I think is the question of frontiers, and it was agreed the other day that the frontiers should be all taken together.

Mr. Molotov: I am not clear about what “all frontiers” means.

Mr. Bevin: It was the frontiers referred to in Article 3, the frontiers referred to in Article 16, and the other day it was decided, if I remember rightly, that these should be all dealt with together—Article 3, Article 4, Article 16.⁹² Is it the desire of the Council to adhere to that, or should we deal with Article 3 and Article 4 separately?

Secretary Byrnes: They are parts of the same proposal and I suggest that they be considered together.

Article 10 (A)

Mr. Bevin: Then the first Article to deal with would be Article 10 (a).⁹³ This is a question which we failed to settle with regard to the agreement between the Italians and the Austrians, whether or not this should be included in the Treaty.

Mr. Molotov: I have a question. It is true that we have reached agreement to take up Article 3, 4, and 16 simultaneously, but now I see we have passed on to Article 10 (A), and I wonder when we shall take up Article 3, 16 and 4.

Mr. Bevin: I was following the order of the Treaty going through the Articles that weren’t agreed upon, and I think 16 comes next, doesn’t it?

Mr. Molotov: No objection. I have understood.

Mr. Bevin: Now the position as we left it the other day was that some of the delegations want it written into the Peace Treaty; others don’t. Now, can we agree to put it in the Treaty now, or not?

Mr. Molotov: I have no new remarks to offer on this subject.

Secretary Byrnes: I have nothing to say on it.

Article 13

Mr. Bevin: Article 13 has been disposed of by the adoption of the Deputies’ report today. Article 16.

Frontier Question Articles 3, 4, 16 of Italian Treaty

Mr. Molotov: May I ask a question? We gave further hearing to the Yugoslavs and Italians on this subject and I wonder if it is not proper for us to arrive at certain conclusions in connection with what we heard from them and in connection with the considerations expressed by them, in particular by the Yugoslavs. As I understand, our purpose is to arrive at some sort of solution of this question and to find, as far as possible, a common ground between us and those whom we heard. We have not discussed the questions raised by Yugoslavia and I now want to ask if it is not expedient for us to have an exchange of views first and then instruct our Deputies to take up this question at length, in detail.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, the position of the United States Delegation is that on the question of the frontier, the Council has already agreed, after discussion for many months the Council has agreed. Since that time, two-thirds of the Allied Governments have agreed upon it and, after hearing and considering the statements of the representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy, the United States sees no reason to reverse its attitude or for the Council to change its view.

Letter From Italian Ambassador

M. Couve de Murville: The French Delegation was entirely in agreement that the question be placed on the agenda of the Council and discussed if the Council deems it necessary. However, we are somewhat embarrassed because I have received a letter from the Italian Delegation, which I suppose some of the members may have also received, in which the Italian Delegation discussed contacts which are being taken between Italy and Yugoslavia and in this letter Italy alluded to the possibility of conversations between Italy and Yugoslavia to settle the question directly between the two governments.⁹⁴ I think this places us in a somewhat difficult position because we have been dealing with that question for some 14 months and the problem arises if we should accept these direct negotiations and take them into account in case they succeed. I would like to ask whether similar communications have been received by other members and what would be the attitude of the members of the Council to this action of Italy or Yugoslavia, or both. I think it is important that we have a similar position in the matter. I would like to add that this communication which was received from the Italian Government merely confirmed information which we might have all read in the press within the last few days.

Mr. Bevin: Any other observations?

Secretary Byrnes: In response to the inquiry, I have received a communication, I assume that it is similar to the communication referred to by the French Delegation. I advised the representative of Italy that he was mistaken in his belief that when the matter was passed over on the initiative of the United States that we had in mind any conferences between Yugoslavia and Italy, because we had no inclination as to such conferences and this was a matter of procedure of the Council.⁹⁵ I think it desirable always that governments should confer with each other, but I do want to call the attention of the French Delegation that the letter [latter] is mistaken, the comment of the representative of Italy being as follows: “It shall be clearly understood that the Italian Government is ready to enter direct negotiations with Yugoslavia under the assumption that the agreement of the Big Four of July 3, 1946 and the majority decision of the Paris Conference stand firm.” I think it important that we proceed with the consideration of the question. There are other questions as to which there might be extensions, because they have received only the recommendations of two-thirds or three-fourths of the governments composing the Conference, but this proposal was agreed to by the Council, it was confirmed by the Conference, and there is no issue between us.

Mr. Molotov: Just as my colleagues, I have also received this letter from the Italian Embassy on the subject of the immediate negotiations now under way between Italy and Yugoslavia. I should like to recall the fact that it is already the second letter that we have received from the Italian Government. The first letter was received by us November 8,⁹⁶ and now a second letter has reached us. As to the information contained in this letter of today to the effect that the Italian Government considers it to be a favorable factor that immediate negotiations are now underway between Italy and Yugoslavia on the questions at issue, this fact, in the view of the Soviet Delegation is worthy of our attention. I must say the Soviet Delegation remains on the same position as adopted by the Council of Foreign Ministers, in particular, on the subject of the frontier. On the other hand, in as much as we are now faced with new circumstances, we cannot afford to ignore them. It would be incorrect to ignore them, and though the Soviet Delegation will adhere to the decisions agreed between ourselves, we, as before, think that if we succeed in reaching an agreement on any desirable amendments, the Soviet Delegation will have no objection to this. The fact that the Conference adopted a decision to ask us to give further hearing to the Yugoslavs and Italians, as well as the fact that we acted accordingly and that we gave further hearing to the Yugoslavs and the Italians after the Conference, goes to show these two facts, that the questions dealt with in Articles 3, 4 and 16 call for our attention and that it will be advisable to try to find a solution of the question which will be satisfactory both to us and to the countries concerned. And that is why, on the subject of the statement received today from the Italian representative, the Soviet Delegation takes favorable view of the fact of the immediate direct negotiations between the two governments provided that they will be able to reach an agreement on the questions at issue. The fact that the Council of Foreign Ministers dealt at such great length with the question and brought in to participate in its proceedings the Italians and the Yugoslavs probably induced both of them to try to find, to look for a solution, for a satisfactory solution of the questions at issue. It will not be bad if they manage to reach agreement between themselves because this will make our work easier and this will also ease the situation in this part of Europe. Such is the attitude of the Soviet Delegation towards this letter from the Italian representative to which the French Delegation has just referred.

Secretary Byrnes: As I understand it, Mr. Molotov says that the Soviet Delegation stands by the agreement as to the frontier. The United States stands by the agreement as to the frontier. We have given consideration to what was said by the Yugoslav representatives and the Italian representatives. There was a difference among us at first as to whether the Conference intended that we should consider the frontier or only the statute, but we did hear a statement as to the frontier, we have considered it, and we are of the same opinion.

Now if we want to act to help to bring these countries together we should read what is said by the Italian representative, that it must be clearly understood that the Italian Government is ready to enter into negotiation with Yugoslavia under the assumption that the agreement of the Big Four of July 3, 1946 and the majority decision of the Paris Conference stands firm. I want to let them know we stand firm and there may be some negotiation. If there is agreement then we will all be very happy to learn it.

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

Mr. Bevin: Let me get clear what the suggestion is. We answer the Italian letter, paragraph 4, by saying that the Council of Foreign Ministers stands firm on the decision of July 3, 1946 and the majority decision in the Paris Conference, and then what? Then what do we say to the delegations in answer to this first part? I just want to be clear.

Secretary Byrnes: I was not proposing any answer.

Mr. Bevin: Did I understand that we say that subject to that decision that the parties then could negotiate, or what?

Secretary Byrnes: I want to make plain all that I am saying is that the United States stands by its agreement with the Council of July 3rd as to the frontier, and anybody can advise anybody if they are interested in that fact. I would advise the writer of this letter we have considered what the representative of Yugoslavia and the representative of Italy have to say, and we have not changed our minds and we stand by the decision of the Council of July 3rd.

Now there is an entirely different question, and that is the statute. As to that question, the position of the United States delegation is that we should follow the two-thirds vote of the Conference, and I think the Council ought to dispose of it one way or the other. Whenever we dispose of it, Italy and Yugoslavia will be advised of the action of the Council. It is none of our business if they want to negotiate. We would like to see them get together. I think we could express some opinion about it. For 14 months they hadn’t gotten together, but after we acted on the frontier and after the Conference by a two-thirds vote made a recommendation, then they did get to talking to each other. If we go ahead and include it in the treaties there may be some chance of them getting together. Under the Italian letter there is no chance of them having any negotiations unless we do go ahead.

Mr. Bevin: Well, the United Kingdom Delegation heard the two parties and studied the lines that the Yugoslavs proposed and in regard to all the difficulties we had in arriving at the line the British Delegation agreed to compromise their own proposal with the French line which they deemed to be justified in the circumstances and we don’t think the arguments advanced would justify us to alter that position now. Therefore, we adhere to our previous decision so far as the frontier is concerned. So I take the position now that this part of the article of July 3rd will be written into the Treaty as it now stands.

Frontier Question (Cont’d) and Statute for Trieste, Soviet Amendments

Mr. Molotov: I have already stated the view of the Soviet Delegation on the subject of the negotiations between Italy and Yugoslavia because this question was raised by the French Delegate. The Soviet Delegation considers that a question of the negotiations between Italy and Yugoslavia is the business of these two governments, and it is up to them to decide whether they wish to adopt these negotiations or not. We should not interfere in this business. We should continue to go on with our work but if the question is asked as to the attitude of the Soviet Delegation toward the negotiations, I feel bound to state that the Soviet Delegation, far from objecting to these negotiations, takes a favorable view of them, providing that the two parties concerned will be able to reach agreement acceptable to them both. This will facilitate our work and promote peace, but I want to repeat that these negotiations are the business of the governments of Yugoslavia and Italy, and in as much as we do not know to what these negotiations will lead, we should have nothing to fear in them. We should go on with our work.

As to the letter of today, received from the Italian Embassy, I do not know whether we shall deem it necessary to send a reply to this letter on behalf of the Council of Foreign Ministers. If we do not deem it necessary to reply to the Italian Embassy, then the Soviet Delegation will confine itself only to confirmation of the receipt of that letter. However, if we find it necessary to communicate anything to the Italian representative on behalf of the Council of Foreign Ministers, it goes without saying that the only thing we can communicate to them is what has been agreed upon.

Now as to the question of the frontiers of the area of Trieste and the Italo-Yugoslav boundary, the Soviet Delegation’s stand has always been and continues to be to stand by the position in favor of which we voted on July 3rd. We are not making any proposal to revise these agreed decisions. However, we think that we should take into consideration not only what we decided in the Council of Foreign Ministers and what we agreed upon, but before preparing the final text of the peace treaties we ought to have regard for the states concerned, and I think that we should take into account what we heard. By taking into account what we heard we could improve our decision in the sense that we could find our way to make certain slight concessions and to settle the issue in such a manner as to satisfy all the sides concerned. The Soviet Delegation considers, provided that the United States, British and French Delegations agree, that we could agree to accept a certain minimum of concessions and to reach agreement on the solution of the question at issue. If this suggestion is acceptable, then we could instruct the Deputies to consider this question in detail. If the suggestion is not acceptable, then there is no question of considering any proposal on this subject.

Lastly, as to the question of the Statute of Trieste, to which Mr. Byrnes has referred, we spent much time in discussing this question, but as we know we have failed to reach agreement up to this, today. I think that we ought to find some practical method of examining this question in this last stage of our work. For its part, the Soviet Delegation wishes to put forth the following proposal for the consideration of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

The text of it is in two points, that I want to read now, concerning the Statute of Trieste. It is being translated now and I shall distribute them for your consideration.

The Soviet Delegation proposes that the Deputies be instructed to consider the draft Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste basing themselves on the following:

(1) The duty of the Governor is to assure the observance of the Statute of the Free Territory. To this end the Governor will be empowered to suspend the operation of the laws and decrees adopted in violation of the Statute.

(2) All foreign troops stationed in the Free Territory of Trieste shall be withdrawn within such-and-such a time limit—which I am not specifying for the time being—after the entry into force of the peace treaty with Italy.

M. Couve de Murville: Mr. Chairman, I wish first of all to mention the position of France on the question which I myself raised; that is to say, the question of the letter addressed to us by the Italian Ambassador here. Our position is as follows: There was agreement in the Council on a large number of questions regarding the Italian-Yugoslav frontier. There was unanimous agreement in the Council on the creation of a free territory. Nobody wishes to advert on this question.

Then there is a question of the Statute. On this question there was a ⅔ majority in the Paris Conference, including 3 of the Delegations here represented, and we wish to stand by this decision.⁹⁷

However, we will recognize that the settlement, which we agreed on here and which has the advantage of realizing unanimity of the Council, is not perfect for either Italy or Yugoslavia. If these two countries, therefore, could jointly describe a settlement which would be more satisfactory to them, I think it would be better for themselves and for the cause of the peace, since that peace depends obviously on the acceptance of the agreement between Italy and Yugoslavia.

If an agreement were to intervene between Italy and Yugoslavia, it is obvious that this may lead us to amend some, at least, of the decisions we made in this Council. It is probable that such an agreement would have to be inserted in the peace treaty we are at present considering, and therefore the Council cannot remain indifferent to such an agreement. Of course, we could not approve any agreement which would be submitted to us, but we would have to approve the terms and agreements of such an agreement.

There is one more point. It is the question of the time limit. This ought not delay indefinitely the conclusion of the Peace Treaty. Whatever the case may be, I think it would be important that this Council have a joint attitude on the problem, and it might be interesting to have a common answer addressed to the letter which we have received from the Italian Ambassador. I think it is always a good thing that in such matters we have a joint attitude of the Council.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that I immediately answered the communication addressed to me because it was not addressed to the CFM. I advised, in so far as the United States was concerned, this Government considers that it is bound by the CFM decision of July 3 relating to the French Line and to the establishing of the Free Territory of Trieste and by the Conference recommendations on this subject, which were adopted by a majority of ⅔. This Government has no intention of taking the initiative in advocating a solution contrary to the decision of the Council, and any agreement between the Governments of Italy and of Yugoslavia is, of course, a matter for the Italian and Yugoslav Governments to determine for themselves, but any agreement which might not be in harmony with the CFM decision and the Conference recommendation would have to be scrutinized with the greatest care.

Mr. Bevin: And now there are two issues before the Council, one raised by Mr. Molotov and one raised by M. Couve de Murville. Shall we go on and deal with the Statute first and then deal with the reply after—whether we will reply after?

Mr. Molotov: I have no objection.

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Molotov has made a proposal that this matter of the Statute shall go to the Deputies. What is to be the basis of discussion?

Mr. Molotov: The decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers in these two paragraphs.

Mr. Bevin: Even the French resolution carried at the Conference—I beg your pardon—even in the Commission, the word, I think, the word for the first paragraph was covered.⁹⁸

Mr. Molotov: On what Commission?

Article 13 and Withdrawal of Troops

Mr. Bevin: Just a moment—it was the Subcommittee of the Commission, I am reminded, that drew it up, but it was not finally agreed. But the agreed part, the part that has been covered, was paragraph 1.

It will be found in Article 13 of the draft. Two words that were not agreed were “or contain a provision likely to imperil the integrity and independence of the Free Territory”. Those were the words which were not agreed.”⁹⁹

With respect to withdrawal of troops, the British Government said the Security Council can decide when this situation is stabilized and they should come out. The sooner the Statute can be put in force, and police and other things arranged, the troops come out, I can assure the Council the more pleased the British will be.

What is the pleasure of the Council? Is it that the French resolution, the Subcommittee’s recommendation, and these paragraphs go to the Deputies to see if they can produce out of it all a Statute?

The French plan, I believe, was carried by ⅔ majority. Does not that provide the basis for all this?

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the Soviet Delegation that the proposal of the French Delegation was not what the United States proposed. It is not what the United Kingdom proposed, and it is not what the French Delegation first proposed. This is one question that was discussed at the Conference more than any other question. When we speak today of sending it to the Deputies, the Deputies here are the men who considered this question in Paris day after day. The present Representative of France, the Deputy of the United States, Mr. Jebb and Mr. Vyshinsky, have all considered this Statute. It was given more attention, I think, than any other one question at Paris.

It finally was compromised. That is where the compromises were made, at Paris, by representatives of the various Governments represented, and those compromises enabled the Conference to vote by 15 to 6 for this proposal, and certainly the United States is not going to disregard that result of all that work, which is endorsed by 15 Governments. We stand by it.

May I say to the Soviet Delegation, of the two paragraphs submitted as a suggested basis for the Deputies to consider, one of them, it turns out, is already in the French proposal. The only thing suggested that is not in it is the provision now suggested as to the removal of troops. I hope that the Soviet Delegation might find it possible in the case of this compromise proposal of France to agree to it—15 of of the 21 states agreed to it—and if was agreed to, then I think if Yugoslavia and Italy were advised that the frontiers have been agreed to and the Statute has been agreed to, and if they had an agreement among themselves and would promptly submit it, that we’d be very happy to consider it, there might be some chance that Yugoslavia and Italy agreed. And may I say in the proposal submitted as to the removal of troops, no time was suggested and my friend doubtless realizes it would be difficult to reach an agreement. It will be difficult. That is why the French proposal was wise to leave it to the Security Council to determine when conditions make it possible to remove troops. On the Security Council, the four of us have representatives. We will be able to participate in that decision as to when troops can be removed. If we now agree on this proposal, we will make headway towards the Treaty. If we send it to the Deputies, Yugoslavia and Italy will ask to be heard by the Deputies next week.

Mr. Bevin: Can we agree to the French proposal?

Mr. Molotov: Mr. Chairman, you know that we have been opposed to this French proposal both at the Conference and here. The form in which it was adopted, and we therefore propose to give two directives to the Deputies with the view to their working out a statute in accordance with these two items.

Mr. Bevin: What are the wishes of the Council?

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree to sending this matter to the Deputies on these two suggestions. I understand Mr. Molotov to say that if we do not agree, our disagreement persists.

Mr. Molotov: We have made an attempt to find a solution on which it will be possible for us to reach agreement, and when I think—we thought that the Deputies might help us to reach this agreement after the exchange of views that took place first at the Conference and here. If this proposal of ours meets with no support, then our disagreement remains.

Mr. Bevin: What are the Deputies asked to do? The first point Mr. Molotov suggested is covered by the French plan. Is it to modify the French plan, to strengthen it, or to do what? What are the Deputies to do? Or are they to begin over again?

M. Couve de Murville: Mr. Chairman, I think that you yourself made a suggestion a few minutes ago to refer to the Deputies the new Soviet proposal, the French proposal, and the report of the sub-committee on Trieste at the Paris Conference. I think such a proposition would enable the Deputies to review the whole matter.

Mr. Bevin: I asked the question: What was the question of referring it to the Deputies? I can’t see why it is to go to them, because on the French resolution, as Mr. Byrnes has said, I think all of it is an attempt to meet the Soviet view—it came down to the rock-bottom minimum in order to try and get an agreement. When we do that, even that is unsatisfactory. It is very difficult for us to find a compromise if that compromise involves accepting one government’s position alone. The French resolution, as has been said, was the proposal which my delegation in Paris was very doubtful about, but in the end, the delegation decided to accept it, and we did it in a real desire to secure an agreement in the hope that it would be unanimous.

Soviet View of the Powers of the Governor—Paragraph 5 of French Proposal and Paragraph 5 of Soviet Proposal

Mr. Molotov: Since mention of the French proposal has been made here, I feel bound to explain the Soviet point of view. We understood that the proposal put forward by the French Delegation and adopted by a majority vote at the Conference contained a number of points which are expedient and acceptable. But this cannot be said as to the French proposal in its entirety, as a whole. To be brief, I want to say that in our view, the French proposal is not sufficiently democratic, because it does not reflect the minimum of democratic conditions, the essential minimum of democratic conditions, and their absence in our decision will be badly interpreted, including Trieste itself. We think that the French proposal contains both points which are acceptable and points which are not acceptable.

I shall try to make my idea clear as regards the substance of the French proposal regarding the Statute of Trieste. The proposal which we now make and which is contained in paragraph (1), indicates what specific functions are to be assigned to the Governor in Trieste. Perhaps this proposal may be acceptable or not, but in all events, it indicates the way in which it is correct in our view to define the functions of the governor in Trieste. And on the other hand, let us see what the decisions adopted at the Paris Conference say on this subject. I would say that this decision contains the same things which are contained in paragraph (1) of our present proposal, but they contain also something else, and it is precisely this something else which renders the French proposal unacceptable to the Soviet Delegation, because the French proposal goes too far in increasing the powers of the governor and is in contradiction with the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers to the effect that the legislative and executive authority in Trieste should be based on democratic principles. We objected to vesting legislative powers in the governor in Trieste. However, we are ready now to consider this question again and perhaps some initiative ought to be given to the governor in a certain sphere of his activities. But this question should receive more detailed study.

Let us state then the decision of the Paris Conference regarding the Statute of Trieste. There are several contradictory statements. Compare, for instance, paragraph (5) of the French proposal adopted at the Conference and paragraph (5) of the Soviet proposal regarding the Statute of Trieste.¹ These two proposals were adopted by the Conference, but they contradict each other. Whereas paragraph (5) of the French proposal states that the governor shall in particular have the duty of supervising the observance of the Statute, the Soviet proposal which reads, “the governor shall be responsible for the observance of the Statute of the Free Territory” does not contain these words in particular, and therefore consequently on the same subject, two conflicting decisions are made, and now someone has got to see clearly which of these two decisions is a correct one. And these are the examples to which I should like to draw your attention for the time being.

I want also to mention the fact that the French proposal was adopted by 15 votes and the Soviet proposal was adopted unanimously at the Conference.² The two proposals were adopted by the Conference. The Soviet proposal was adopted unanimously but the Soviet proposal and the French proposal do not quite coincide, and somebody has got to decide which of the two proposals is to be regarded as a correct one.

It was suggested here that it would be perhaps better to refer this question of the time limit for the withdrawal of troops to the Security Council for decision. I think that this is a highly disputable suggestion. I think it is better for us to reach agreement on this subject here and to specify a time limit, but in the long run we might agree to refer this question for decision to the Security Council. The Soviet Delegation suggests that either we decide this question here and fix a time limit, say three months, here in the Council of Foreign Ministers, in my view this time limit is quite sufficient, or we might request the Security Council to take up this question with the proviso that the time limit established by the Security Council should be not more than four months. The Security Council may fix two or three months but, at any rate, a deadline should be set and we could well take this course, but in all events, it is not possible to overlook this question.

Mr. Bevin: With regard to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Soviet proposal that went before the Conference and the French proposal and the words “in particular” it seems to me that the Soviet proposal left out of account altogether the governor’s responsibility to the Security Council. When the Foreign Ministers decided to place it under the Security Council in the Assembly, the duties were not clearly defined, therefore, I don’t see any contradiction. It is rather making it more specific that the governor has to be responsible for the statute of free territory, but he has also got to be responsible to see that the instructions of the Security Council are carried out. It seems to me we have much further to go to see the governor is armed with power so that he can really do what the Security Council says he ought to do for the maintenance of the integrity of the free territory and the other public ordinances of the territory. You see the governor has two duties to perform, one is to observe the statute, in addition he would have responsibility to the Security Council. As I see it, in the French resolution they have given him the power to carry out the obligations imposed upon him by the Security Council. Unless he has got that, I don’t see how he can do his duty, and if the Soviet Delegation will look at it again I think they will see it is very modest and not excessive and really just gives the governor the power to carry out the responsibilities which are imposed upon him and it has just now reached the stage where he has the power to initiate legislation. If there is a further examination of the French proposal you would see that the duties laid down are very limited and, indeed, if they were found to be excessive they are subject to any modification which the Security Council, when it gets going, may subsequently determine. It is really in the hands of the Security Council.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask Mr. Molotov is it his thought that the words “in particular” make the two paragraphs in conflict?

Mr. Molotov: Of course there is contradiction between paragraph 5 of the French proposal and paragraph 5 of the Soviet proposal in spite of the fact that these two proposals were adopted by the Conference. Whereas the Soviet proposal exactly indicates the duties of the governor which under the Soviet proposal are to insure the observance of the statute of the Free Territory of Trieste, the French proposal says that one of the duties of the governor is to insure the observance of the statute and this means that there are other duties assigned to the governor. Consequently, the meaning of these two paragraphs is different and if we keep them both in the decision then this will inevitably rise to misunderstanding. We should put this right and I want to take this opportunity to say that the meaning of the proposal that the Soviet Delegation is making today lies in the attempt to make a proposal which will make it possible for us to reach agreement on the questions on which we should not hide or conceal there is disagreement among us and this proposal we make in the hope that it will be able to eliminate our differences. If this attempt is not acceptable then the disagreements will remain and there is no need to repeat myself.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I ask because if that were the only conflict I think it would be agreeable to strike out the words “in particular”. But if the conflict is that the French proposal gives to the Government certain powers that are not referred to in the single sentence in the Soviet proposal, that is correct. They certainly couldn’t eliminate 6, 7, 8 and 9, which provide the powers the governor shall have.

Mr. Chairman, I say that in my position, about referring the matter to the Deputies, I do not mean thereby to say I am not willing to discuss any changes proposed to the French suggestion, but I think we can consider them just as we are now considering them, and we have these Deputies right by our side and we can get the benefit of their views and then they can have the benefit of our decision.

Therefore, I suggest, suppose we read it over tomorrow and at our next meeting let’s sit down and see if there is possibility of our agreeing upon it.

Mr. Bevin: What is your wish?

Soviet Views of Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 of the French Proposal

Mr. Molotov: Of course, when I pointed to the conflict existing between the wording of paragraph 5 in the French proposal and paragraph 5 of the Soviet proposal I implied that it was necessary to correct the language of these two paragraphs, but I also indicated that it was not only the question of wording but also the question of the fact that certain articles are not satisfactory to us, the articles which in our view depart from the principles of democracy. We think that if we are to work thoroughly on the French proposals it will be possible to improve them and it will be possible to reach agreement on the understanding that we accept amendments in the proposal.

For instance, take paragraph 6 of the French proposal. This paragraph could be accepted subject to certain amendments. I have already indicated that certain legislative initiative might be given to the governor. As to paragraph 7 of the French proposal, it gives rise to no objection, whereas paragraph 8 vests the governor with such powers that it is not possible for us to agree to this paragraph. This shows that all these points of the French proposal call for thorough consideration. I have no objection to discussing this question here in the Council of Foreign Ministers and to sending it then to the Deputies to be worked out in detail, but I think that the Deputies could undertake some preliminary work on the proposals on the understanding that the two items suggested by the Soviet Delegation are accepted.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, can I make my friend realize that this proposal stands in a different position from a new proposal submitted to the Council? This proposal was submitted to the Conference, it was considered by the Deputies to whom it is now suggested that it be referred. It was not only considered by them, but it was considered by representatives of the governments constituting the Peace Conference, and after they considered it then the Conference considered it. Then it comes to us and it has the backing of 15 of the 21 governments. I couldn’t agree that any matter be sent to the Deputies. This formal action, which is a result of a lot of hard work by the three members of this Council and by work on the part of 21 governments, to just throw it aside and say, “Take this, one of them is already agreed to,” there really isn’t any proposal here except as to troops. I think the Council ought to consider the French proposal as submitted to us by the Conference. I am willing to consider it paragraph by paragraph.

Mr. Bevin: Well, now, it is getting late. There is one subject still outstanding. I suppose we had better adjourn. That was shall we reply to this letter raised by the French Delegate?

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, is it addressed to the Council?

Mr. Molotov: I have no objection to Mr. Byrnes’ suggestion to discussing the French proposal paragraph by paragraph at the next meeting.

Mr. Bevin: Any objection to that? Then do you want to reply collectively to this letter?³

Mr. Molotov: Let us discuss the question with fresh minds.

Mr. Bevin: When do we meet again?

Mr. Molotov: That is a proper question which has to be decided. I suggest tomorrow at 4 o’clock.

Mr. Bevin: Four o’clock.

Secretary Byrnes: We will adjourn at 7:00.

(The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.)

91. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
92. The articles under reference had been discussed at length at the 1st Meeting of the Council on November 4; see the United States Delegation Minutes of that meeting, p. 969.
93. The proposed article, the text of which is printed in vol. iv, p. 893, had previously been discussed by the Council at its 1st Meeting, November 4, 1946; see the United States Delegation Minutes, ante, p. 969.
94. The reference here is presumably to the note of November 11, 1946, from the Italian Ambassador to the Secretary of State, p. 1109.
95. See telegram Delsec 1094, November 11, 1946, from the Secretary of State to the Chargé” in Rome, p. 1110.
96. Cf. note of November 8, 1946, from the Italian Ambassador to the Secretary of State, p. 1071.
97. At its 35th Plenary Meeting, October 9, 1946, 4 p.m. (see vol. iii, p. 702), the Paris Peace Conference adopted a resolution regarding the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste which had been proposed by the French Delegation and had been recommended, with amendments, by the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy. For the text of the French proposal, included under article 16 of the Record of Recommendations by the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, see vol. iv, p. 895.
98. For the French resolution as adopted by the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, see the Report of that Commission to the Peace Conference, October 5, 1946, vol. iv, p. 299.
99. The document under reference by Foreign Secretary Bevin at this point appears to be document C.P.(IT/P) (S/T) Doc. 8, Annex, September 30, 1946, the Annex to the Report by the Sub-Commission on the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste to the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy. This Report, which set forth the comparative texts of the various draft Statutes proposed by the Delegations is printed in vol. iv, p. 632.
1. The Soviet proposal referred to here appears to be the texts of points 5 and 6 which the Soviet Delegation proposed as alternatives to points 5 and 6 of the French resolution. Like the French resolution, the Soviet proposals were recommended by the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy and were adopted by the Peace Conference and recommended to the Council of Foreign Ministers. For the text as recommended to the Council, see vol. iv, p. 898; see also the Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, ibid., p. 299.
2. For the record of the voting of the Peace Conference on the French proposal and the Soviet proposal, see the Verbatim Record of the 35th Plenary Meeting of the Peace Conference, October 9, 1946, 4 p.m., vol. iii, p. 702.
3. There appears to have been no further discussion by the Council of Foreign Ministers of the communication of November 11 from Ambassador Tarchiani on behalf of his government. As already indicated, the Secretary of State’s reply was contained in telegram Delsec 1094, November 11, from New York, p. 1110. The United Kingdom reply is quoted in footnote 28, p. 1161. Soviet Minister Molotov’s reply of November 18, a copy of which was given to the Secretary of State, is printed on p. 1199.