C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2080: CFM Minutes
United States Delegation Minutes, Council of Foreign Ministers, Third Session, Second Informal Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 16, 1946, 4 p.m.
Participants
| U.S.A. | ||
| Mr. Byrnes | ||
| Mr. Cohen | ||
| Mr. Dunn | ||
| Mr. Bohlen | ||
| U.S.S.R. | Great Britain | |
| M. Molotov | Mr. Bevin (Chairman) | |
| M. Vyshinsky | Mr. Jebb | |
| M. Gusev | Mr. Sterndale-Bennett | |
| M. Pavlov | Interpreter | |
| France | ||
| M. Couve de Murville | ||
| M. H. Alphand | ||
| Mr. Wolfrom | ||
| Interpreter |
Administration of the Free Territory of Trieste
The delegates all had the French proposal before them (copy attached).
Mr. Molotov suggested that they start with the fourth paragraph, which he would accept with the following substitution for the first part of the first sentence: “cases which permit of new [no] delay and when there is a threat to independence or integrity of the Free Territory, etc.”
Mr. Bevin said that that weakened this paragraph appreciably.
Mr. Molotov said he did not think it did, and that it merely stated what had often been said here, namely, that the Governor can take into his hands power and control of the police in cases permitting of no delay whereas he should not interfere in normal conditions. If he did, there would be dual authority which would mutually interfere with each other.
Mr. Byrnes said that his objection to the Soviet amendment was that it did not state who would decide when such a situation arose. He thought it was necessary to have to retain the words making it clear that the Governor would decide.
Mr. Molotov said he was ready to eliminate any uncertainty on this point.
Mr. Bevin said that before going further, they must decide whether this French paper affords a basis for their discussion. He felt it was a mistake to begin with the last paragraph, but it would be better to look at the paper as a whole and see if it adequately reflected their views that the Governor should have proper powers to preserve order, etc. He said the controlling element was paragraph 8 (a) of the Conference recommendation and pointed out that the Soviet amendment to that paragraph changed its whole meaning by the use of the word “supervise”.35 He added that the present document was merely desired to give effect to the principle contained in paragraph 8 (a).
Mr. Molotov inquired what they were discussing.
Mr. Bevin said he did not see how it would be possible to consider the last paragraph of the French paper without deciding on the principle contained in paragraph (a), namely, whether the Governor was merely to supervise or would be responsible. He repeated they did not understand what was meant by the Soviet amendment to 8 (a) in regard to the supervision of the basic principles in the maintenance of public order and security. He said the original French proposal recommended by the Conference was quite clear.
[Page 1176]Mr. Molotov said he was agreeable either to considering the amendment to paragraph 8(a) or the present French document.
Mr. Bevin said his difficulty was that he could not agree to individual parts of the French document until he knew what was to be the fate of the other amendments of the statute.
Mr. Byrnes said he felt there was a misunderstanding and suggested that they should begin with paragraph 1 of the French proposal, which was designed to spell out the Governor’s responsibilities and powers to act.
Mr. Bevin said he wished to make himself clear and pointed out that the preamble of the present French document referred to the application of the principles contained in paragraphs 8(a) and 9, and it was, therefore, necessary to decide what principles they were trying to apply. Paragraph 8(a) referred to the duty of the Governor to maintain public order whereas the two Soviet amendments seemed to refer to the duty of the Governor to the Security Council.
Mr. Molotov pointed out that his amendments referred to only the first part of the French proposal.
Mr. Bevin said he understood and took it that Mr. Molotov meant that the other parts of paragraph 8, namely, (b) and (c), would be discussed later.
Mr. Molotov inquired which words—“supervision” or “basis”—worried Mr. Bevin.
Mr. Bevin replied both since he did not know what they meant.
Mr. Molotov replied that it meant the Governor was not to interfere in minor matters but only on fundamentals.
Mr. Couve de Murville said he wondered whether the trouble was not in the wording, which gave the impression that the Governor would administer directly public order whereas he felt that they all meant that the Governor would ensure public order indirectly in normal times, but directly in special cases.
Mr. Bevin inquired whether the words “general maintenance of public order” might not solve the difficulty.
Mr. Couve de Murville said he thought the words “to ensure the maintenance of public order, etc.” would be the proper expression.
Mr. Byrnes agreed and said that the day before yesterday Mr. Molotov had conceded that the primary responsibility of the Governor was to ensure public order and security, but that he would delegate his powers in normal times to the local authorities.
Mr. Molotov said that if that formula were adopted, there would be no constitution and no statute since all would depend on the Governor. If he could delegate his authority, he could also withhold it, as he saw fit. This, he felt, would create too individual a rule.
Mr. Byrnes said that on the contrary the limit to his authority was set forth in the statute and that all his powers would remain within [Page 1177] that framework, but that he could delegate these powers to the local authorities. In no case, however, could he go beyond the responsibilities given him under the Charter.
Mr. Molotov repeated that if the Governor could delegate, he could also refuse to delegate.
Mr. Byrnes pointed out that the Governor would be appointed by the Security Council with limited powers and he could do nothing beyond those powers.
Mr. Bevin said he felt that Mr. Couve de Murville’s proposal that the Governor must ensure public order and security in the Free Territory was the correct formula.
Mr. Molotov said that the Governor should be vested with general supervision of public order but with no right to interfere except in special cases.
Mr. Byrnes pointed out that one difficulty in English was with the word “supervision”. In English, this meant no power to enforce. He said, for example, an employee of the Waldorf might be given the right to supervise the arrangements for their meetings, but that if the Ministers did not like the arrangements, they could change them. The question was really one of control and authority.
Mr. Molotov said that in Russian general supervision would not mean no right to interfere. He said he thought the matter would be solved if they could agree in principle that the Governor would not directly administer public order in normal times, but only in cases of emergency.
Mr. Byrnes said the difficulty was we were not in agreement on the main proposal, that is, where would the final authority lie and who would have the power of the decision. He said the statute was not drafted but would contain specific provisions concerning these powers. He said further it was our view that unless the Governor was given final authority for public order, there would be no Free Territory. He went on to say that the prestige of the United Nations was involved, and in his view the Governor should have primary responsibility but with the power to delegate to local officials the exercise of his power in so far as he considered it consistent with his responsibilities.
Mr. Molotov said that the Soviet point of view was that the Governor has clearly defined powers and the Government Council has clearly defined powers. It was, therefore, necessary to state this division of the powers, clearly recognizing that the Governor has higher authority as representative of the Security Council. On the other hand, the Governor should not interfere in the daily orders of the local authorities, but only in exceptional circumstances. He felt that if the principle of a clear definition of powers was accepted, an agreement was possible.
[Page 1178]Mr. Bevin said the Governor must have supreme responsibility for the maintenance of public order and security.
Mr. Byrnes said that he felt that the purpose of the present French document was to make clear the primary responsibility of the Governor for public order and security and to spell out how this authority was to be applied. He felt, therefore, they should take up the discussion of the French document, point by point, but before doing so he would make one last suggestion for paragraph 8 (a), as follows:
“The responsibility of the governor shall be:
“a) to ensure that public order and security are administered and maintained by the government of the Free Territory in accordance with the International Statute and the Constitution and Laws of the Free Territory.
“The governor’s responsibility shall be applied in the following manner.” (Here insert new French draft)
Mr. Molotov said he thought that Mr. Byrnes’ draft was acceptable.
Mr. Bevin said that he would have to have time to study it before he could accept it.
The Ministers then turned to the discussion of the French document.
Mr. Molotov said that paragraph 1 (a) would be acceptable if the words “on proposal of the Government Council” were substituted for the words “after consultation with the Government Council.”
Mr. Couve de Murville said that the difficulty was what would be done if the Government Council and the Governor did not agree.
Mr. Molotov said that the Security Council could decide in the event of a dispute. This question was left open with the French, British and American Delegations in favor of the wording of the French document, as drafted, and the Soviet Delegation in favor of substituting the words “on proposal” for “after consultation”. Paragraph 1 (b) was adopted without change. He said that paragraph 2 was acceptable to him.
Mr. Bevin stated that he could not accept the reference therein due to the fact that the Director of Security would be subordinate to the Government Council when in certain circumstances he would be subordinate to the Governor. As worded, paragraph 2 means that the Director of Security would obey only the Council.
Mr. Byrnes suggested that the paragraph might read: “The Director of Safety will normally receive instructions from the Council of Government covering questions within his competence.”
Mr. Bevin pointed out it would seem to him that if paragraph 8 (a) gave authority to the Governor for the maintenance of public order and security, this paragraph took it away from him.
Mr. Byrnes said that he thought there were three main points: (1) the question of the appointment and dismissal of the Director of [Page 1179] Security; (2) in normal times the Director would receive his instructions from the local authorities and (3) the qualifications assuring the right of the Governor to take over were contained in the sections of paragraph 3 of the present French document. He said that under (a) and (b) the Governor would be kept currently informed of all actions in the field of public security and that under (c) and paragraph 4 he was given the right to exercise his authority. Under (c) he could in effect veto any administrative measures which he felt affected his responsibility and under paragraph 4 he could directly take over if the situation, in his opinion, required it.
Mr. Bevin said that he did not like the word “discuss” in paragraph 3 (a). It was pointed out that the proper translation in English was “consult”.
Mr. Couve de Murville said that it had been his idea that the Governor should be kept informed of all actions taken by the Director of Security and would have the right to talk them over with the Director of Security, and then under paragraph 3 (c) he would be able to exercise his veto power.
Mr. Byrnes suggested that in paragraph 3 (b) the words “take part in the meeting of the Council of Government” should be eliminated since that implied that he derived his right to be informed solely from the fact that he could attend meetings. There might be times when the Governor could not attend meetings but he should nevertheless be kept informed.
Mr. Molotov said that he thought that the Governor should have the right to attend meetings.
Mr. Byrnes agreed but said he thought that this was the wrong place for a statement of that right. It was agreed to eliminate that sentence and to add it to Article 7, which dealt with the right of the Governor to express his views to the Government Council. Article 7 was thus amended to read “The Governor shall have the right to attend meetings of the Council of Government and to express his views, etc.”
Mr. Bevin said he felt that in paragraph 3 (c) the words “in his opinion” should be added in the first part in order to safeguard against a stalemate if the Council and the Governor disagreed.
Mr. Molotov said he accepted that but he had a new draft for paragraph 3 (c). He said his amendment was designed to clear up any uncertainty as to the division of powers and would make clear that in normal times any dispute as to these powers should be referred to the Security Council for decision whereas in an emergency the Governor could act on his own responsibility, reporting afterwards to the Security Council. He said his new draft was as follows: “In questions which, in his opinion, affect his responsibility (observation of the [Page 1180] statute, maintenance of public order and security and respect for human rights) the Governor can recommend to the Government Council to prevent disorder, but in case of difference between the Government Council and the Governor the question should be referred to the Security Council for settlement.”
Mr. Bevin asked Mr. Couve de Murville what the word “opposed” meant and, if this gave the Governor the right of veto, if, in his opinion, any acts of the local authorities were in violation of the statute and whether if this was the case the veto would stand pending a solution by the Security Council. He said he thought it was of great importance that the Governor should have the power to veto what, in his opinion, violates his responsibilities. If his veto did not apply, the Governor would be powerless while the dispute was being considered by the Security Council. By that time all the harm might have been done.
Mr. Molotov said it was necessary to have clarity in the interests of both the Governor and the local authorities. He said in Mr. Couve de Murville’s proposal there was nothing regarding a veto but only the right to suspend. He said he would explain more fully his idea. Their conception of the relations between the Governor and local authorities involved a clear definition of their respective powers. The Soviet Delegation had submitted an amendment to paragraph 6 of the Paris recommendation which left with the Governor the right to veto legislative acts. In regard to the executive administration they felt that in an emergency the Governor should have the right to take over but in normal times the Governor should have no right to repeal orders of the Council. He could recommend and his recommendation would obviously carry great weight in view of his authority, but that if the Council did not agree, the dispute should go to the Security Council. He felt that was the only way to avoid difficulties and the possibility was that the Governor would constantly interfere with the local authorities through the right of appeal. This would create confusion and even chaos and embarrass both the local authorities and the Governor himself.
Mr. Bevin pointed out that the question at issue was the right of administrative and not legislative veto.
Mr. Molotov agreed that that was the subject.
Mr. Bevin said let us suppose that the Council gave orders of an administrative nature to the Director of Safety which were contrary to the statute. Could the Governor then merely recommend that these orders be suspended or could he act to prevent their entry into force. He said he felt that they must assume responsibility for what they were creating and that the Governor as representative of the United Nations could not permit the local government to violate the statute. He suggested that even in normal times the right of appeal to the [Page 1181] Security Council could be provided for in the event of disagreement, as in the case of paragraph 4 of the present French document and Article 6 of the Confrence recommendation concerning legislation.
Mr. Molotov pointed out that the Governor has the right which the Council does not have, namely, that in exceptional cases he can take over directly. He repeated that in normal times he should not have the right to interfere, which would produce dual authority and create confusion. In an emergency the Governor could take over but if there is no emergency any dispute should go to the Security Council.
Mr. Byrnes said he thought it would be unwise to take Mr. Molotov’s directive as written since it did not sufficiently safeguard the Governor’s powers. As it stood, it would force him to have recourse to declaring a state of emergency more often than would be desirable whereas if his powers in normal times were adequately protected he would not utilize his emergency powers. He said he did not see why they could not follow the same procedure as in the case of the legislative veto and provide for the right of appeal, but he felt that in administrative action there could be no ten-day delay since administrative action sometimes required immediate treatment.
Mr. Bevin said that under Mr. Molotov’s suggestion nothing could be done in regard to a local administrative action until the Security Council decided, which might be too late. If despite the Governor’s objection such administrative action remained in force, the damage would be done.
Mr. Molotov repeated that he thought that such dual authority in regard to daily affairs in normal times would only create confusion. One authority would order and the other would revoke.
Mr. Bevin pointed out that any such action on the part of the Governor would be confined to violation of the statute and that this was a limitation on the Governor’s right of interference. He felt that the wording was unimportant but that what was important was to state clearly the right of the Governor to stop administrative measures which were contrary to the statute.
Mr. Molotov said the Governor should not have the right to suspend every trivial measure but only those important measures which violate the statute. He said he had a new compromise draft to propose, namely: “The Governor may suggest to the Government Council in cases which affect his responsibilities (observation of the statute, maintenance of public order and security and respect for human rights). The Governor may suggest to the Government Council in the cases specifically indicated in the statute the suspension of administrative measures adopted in violation of the statute. In case the Council opposes, the Governor can suspend the measures in question and send the whole question to the Security Council.”
[Page 1182]Mr. Byrnes said he thought that the words “in his opinion” should be added and that the Soviet redraft might then be acceptable. He mentioned he thought that the Governor could be safely entrusted with these powers since he would be an independent, impartial person of high caliber who could be counted on not to abuse these powers and if he did, the Security Council would remove him.
Mr. Molotov agreed to insert the words “in his opinion”.
Mr. Bevin said he thought the redraft was acceptable subject to drafting.
Mr. Molotov said that in regard to Article 4 he had already given his amendment, namely, “in cases which permit of no delay and when there exists a threat to the independence or integrity of the territory”.
Mr. Bevin inquired whether the words “public order or the respect for human rights” were thus omitted.
Mr. Molotov said he thought it would be a mistake to interpret too widely the cases of emergency and admitted that his present text omitted the words in question.
Mr. Bevin said he could not accept this redraft since the Governor would be helpless in the event of a threat to public order or human rights.
Mr. Molotov said he thought it was important to avoid abuse of emergency powers.
Mr. Bevin said he was prepared to accept the omission of the words “exceptional cases” and take Mr. Molotov’s draft in regard to no delay and the existence of threat.
Mr. Byrnes pointed out that if there was any abuse on the part of the Governor he could be removed by the Security Council.
Mr. Molotov inquired whether it wasn’t sufficient to provide for full powers when there was a threat to the independence or integrity of the Free Territory. There was general agreement on this paragraph subject to the open question of the inclusion of the words “public order or the respect for human rights”.
Mr. Bevin said that they now returned to paragraph 1 which was how the Director of Security was to be elected—whether after consultation with the Government Council or on its recommendation.
Mr. Molotov said they would have to think over the wording of paragraph 1. He added he thought that they could reach agreement on this point if they could fix a time limit of three months for the withdrawal of troops.
Mr. Bevin said that that was a different question.
Mr. Molotov answered that he felt that it was directly related to the question of the Free Territory.
Mr. Bevin said that he thought withdrawal related to the organization of the régime of the Free Territory; that to set in advance a [Page 1183] definite time limit irrespective of the state of the organization of the régime would be impossible.
Mr. Molotov [Bevin?] thought the Free Territory could be organized in three or four months but who really knew how far they would have progressed at that date. He said that Great Britain was ready to withdraw its troops as soon as the Free Territory was organized, but they had not even gotten down yet to the discussion of the details of the statute.
Mr. Molotov said in fact the presence of foreign troops had not prevented some disorders in the territory and he felt that the presence indefinitely of such troops did not tend to enhance their prestige. Unless a definite time limit was fixed, the inhabitants would have no clear idea as to when these troops would be removed. In the Italian and other treaties a time limit of ninety days was fixed and he proposed to follow the same time limit for the Free Territory.
Mr. Byrnes said he only wished to say that in so far as the United States was concerned we had no desire to maintain troops longer than necessary in the Free Territory. We only wanted to get them home. He pointed out that when the Italian treaty went into effect the troops to the north would be withdrawn and only those in the Free Territory would remain, and that they would be under the authority of the Security Council. He said they were all members of the Security Council and that neither Italy and Yugoslavia nor anybody else had reason to be afraid that these troops would remain one minute longer than was necessary. He said he thought they could discuss the number of troops required. Their removal would depend on the setting up of the administration of the Free Territory. He said Mr. Molotov considered that this could be done within three or four months but their experience should make them cautious on this point since no one would have anticipated that it would have taken so long to get an Italian treaty.
Mr. Molotov said he was not so pessimistic as Mr. Byrnes; that he felt that a time limit should be established for the setting up of democratically elected authorities in Trieste. Confidence should be shown in the ability of the inhabitants to do so and he felt that by announcing the date for elections and for the removal of troops would express such confidence. There is no reason to assume that the democratically elected authorities could not maintain order without foreign troops in Trieste, particularly when there would be a governor representing the Security Council. He thought the population would be impatient to know when the Allies were getting out and thus show confidence in the new regime. If no date was fixed there would be great perplexity following the entry into force of the Italian treaty.
[Page 1184]Mr. Bevin said they could not settle it tonight. He added that Mr. Molotov had said the Soviet amendment to Article 11 would be ready today and they could perhaps study it over the weekend.
Mr. Molotov said he did not have the text but would distribute it tomorrow morning.
It was agreed that the Deputies would meet at eleven o’clock Sunday morning in order to draft a clean text on the basis of today’s discussion, and that the Ministers would meet at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, November 18, in restricted session.
- The French proposals regarding the Statute for the Free Territory of Trieste, included under article 16 of the Recommendations of the Peace Conference, together with the Soviet amendments thereto, were set forth in document CFM(46) (NY) 13, November 14, 1946, p. 1156.↩
- The paragraphs under reference are those in the Record of Recommendations by the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy under article 16; see vol. iv, p. 895. These recommendations for article 16, together with the proposed Soviet amendments thereto are included in document CFM(46) (NY) 13, November 14, 1946, p. 1156.↩