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

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

United States Delegation Minutes, Council of Foreign Ministers, Third Session, Third Informal Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 18, 1946, 4 p.m.

New York, November 18, 1946, 4 p.m.

secret

Participants:

	U.S.A.
	Mr. Byrnes
	Senator Vandenberg
	Mr. Cohen
	Mr. Dunn
	Mr. Bohlen
U.S.S.R.		Great Britain
M. Molotov (Chairman)		Mr. Bevin
M. Vyshinsky		Mr. Jebb
M. Gusev		Gen. Catroux
M. Gousev		Mr. Sterndale-Bennett
M. Pavlov		Interpreter
	France
	M. Couve de Murville
	M. H. Alphand
	Mr. Wolfrom
	Interpreter

Administration of the Free Territory of Trieste

Mr. Molotov, who presided, suggested that they hear a report of the Deputies (copy attached).⁴⁰ Mr. Alphand made the report.

Mr. Molotov suggested that they continue the discussion of the Deputies’ report, point by point. He said there was no objection to Article 7, as amended, and, therefore, it was regarded as adopted.

In 8(a) there was still the general British reservation and a difference regarding the word “government”. He said the Soviet delegation had interpreted Mr. Byrnes’ proposal to mean by government the Council of Government. Otherwise, the Governor would be assuming responsibility for himself.

Mr. Byrnes explained that under our terminology the government meant all branches of the government and he thought it was important that they should be included. He said, of course, the Governor was responsible for himself.

Mr. Molotov agreed but said that the difficulty was in the relationship between the various branches of government. He felt that the executive branch, which was the Council of Government, was the organ in question.

Mr. Byrnes explained that the word “government” included all the various organs of government—the executive, judiciary and legislative. For example, if there was a Supreme Court in Trieste, it would be included as part of the government, as well as all lower courts. He said he felt this was important since all branches of the government in one form or another were connected with the question of public security.

Mr. Molotov said he thought that the word could be accepted in view of the fact that the relationship of the various branches of the government would be set forth in the statute in the constitution, to which reference was made. He pointed out, however, that Mr. Bevin had not yet withdrawn his general reservation.

Mr. Bevin said that he would wish to see what happened in regard to the other points of the paper they were considering.

Mr. Molotov passed on to the next point and suggested that 8(b) and (c) be passed over as they had not been discussed and that they should go to 8 bis. On point 1, he said the Soviet Delegation thought it right to say that the Governor should appoint on the proposal of the Council, which would indicate that the Council of Government would be taken into consideration, but that the Governor would have the final say.

Mr. Bevin said that they favored the French, British and American proposal. They agreed that the Governor should fully consult with the Council but that since the Director would be responsible to the Governor and to the Security Council his appointment should be in the hands of the Governor.

Mr. Molotov said he thought it would be possible to merge the two drafts and say that the nominee should be selected by the Council, but appointed by the Governor in consultation with the Council.

Mr. Couve de Murville inquired whether this meant that the Director would have to be chosen from a list of candidates presented by the Council. He said he always had in mind the possibility of a conflict between the Governor and the Council.

Mr. Molotov said it would be desirable to appoint the candidate from a list presented by the Council, but if none was suitable to the Governor, then the Governor could on his own initiative make the appointment. He said he would read the text of his proposal: “Candidates to the post of public security shall be presented by the Council. The appointment should be made by the Governor in consultation with the Council.”

Mr. Bevin pointed out that the draft did not repeat what Mr. Molotov had said before, namely, that the Governor could go outside of the list of candidates if he found the names submitted unsuitable.

Mr. Molotov said it would be possible to add the words to cover that point and say that the Director should be selected from a list presented by the Council or from among others.

Mr. Byrnes said that, as he understood it, from hearing it that proposal seemed to be acceptable.

Mr. Bevin said he wished to be clear and asked whether, for example, if three candidates were presented by the Council and the Governor regarded all of them as unsuitable then the Governor would have the sole right to appoint another, but the language would indicate that he must then consult the Council.

Mr. Molotov said in all the proposals on this subject consultation had been provided for. He said in his new draft it provides for the consideration of candidates presented by the Council, but if all are unsuitable then the Governor, after consulting again with the Council, could appoint whomever he saw fit.

Mr. Byrnes read what he had understood to be Mr. Molotov’s proposal, namely, that the Governor appoints the candidate from a list suggested by the Council or from among others.

Mr. Molotov said this was correct.

Mr. Bevin said that if, for example, the Government has another candidate and the Council disagrees, does the Governor still have the right to appoint.

Mr. Molotov replied that he would have that power.

Mr. Bevin then said that subject to drafting he thought this suggestion was acceptable.

Mr. Molotov said that with regard to paragraph 2, the Soviet Delegation preferred the original French proposal and suggested its retention.

Mr. Bevust said he wished to revert for a moment to paragraph 1 and inquired whether the Governor would have the right to dismiss the Director.

Mr. Molotov said yes after consultation with the Council.

Mr. Couve de Murville said that in regard to paragraph 2 he felt there was a misunderstanding and the Deputies had had difficulty. He had thought that on Saturday⁴¹ it had been agreed not to use the word “subordination”.

Mr. Molotov said they had accepted Mr. Byrnes’ amendment to replace the words “normal times” by the word “normally”, but that they had not agreed to eliminate the word “subordination”.

Mr. Byrnes pointed out that his amendment had in effect been a new wording.

Mr. Molotov said that the point was to whom would the Director be subordinate in normal times.

Mr. Byrnes said that they had just agreed that he would be appointed by the Governor and he felt in normal times he would receive instructions from the Council, but that basically he was responsible to the Governor.

Mr. Molotov then suggested that they might combine the two formulas and state that he would receive his orders normally from the Council as an act of subordination.

Mr. Byrnes said in effect the Director was subordinate to both but that the Governor was the higher authority. They agreed that normally he should receive his instructions from the Council, but that the superior power of the Governor must be made clear.

Mr. Bevin suggested that they might say that the Director was generally responsible to the Governor but normally receives instructions from the Council.

Mr. Molotov said he thought that was a dangerous proposal and would create confusion since it would not be clear to whom the Governor [Director] would be responsible under normal conditions. He said it was understood that in paragraph 4 the Director would be responsible to the Governor in special circumstances. He proposed that they return to the original French proposal.

Mr. Byrnes pointed out that there had been no agreement on the original French proposal.

Mr. Molotov suggested they merge the two drafts and repeated his previous proposal to add the words “as a matter of subordination”.

Mr. Byrnes asked if it would meet Mr. Molotov if they should state that the Director shall normally receive and give effect to the instructions of the Security Council.

Mr. Molotov said that would not solve the question but that the issue was to make quite clear that in normal times the Director was under the orders of the Council and in extraordinary emergencies under the Governor.

Mr. Byrnes suggested that they pass that over for the moment and proceed to the next point.

3 (a) and (b) were adopted without objection.

Mr. Molotov said with reference to 3(c) that in order to avoid misunderstanding they had submitted an amendment which provided for the inclusion of the words “in cases expressly laid down in the statute”.

Mr. Bevin said he did not understand what that meant unless it was based on a desire to restrict the questions on which the Governor could act. He said he had a new draft for 3(c) which he felt expressed clearly what they all had in mind. He distributed the paper and an oral translation was made in Russian.⁴²

Mr. Molotov said that the only question in his mind was should the Governor interfere in all minor matters of administration. He said he thought Mr. Bevin’s draft, however, was acceptable as a basis if the words in brackets could be deleted in order to make it clear that the Governor was not to interfere in minor matters but only if fundamental questions provided for in the statute were affected.

Mr. Bevin pointed out there was no statute yet so it was difficult to refer to what would be in the statute. All, however, agreed that the words in brackets would undoubtedly appear in the statute.

Mr. Byrnes pointed out that they had no certainty as to exactly how these principles would be embodied in the statute and that, therefore, it was better to mention them here as examples of what principles the Governor would be responsible for preserving.

Mr. Molotov said that the main point was that the Governor should not interfere in every trivial matter, but only in the basic principles of the Charter.

Mr. Byrnes said that obviously the words in brackets did not refer to trivial matters, but precisely to the basic principles of the Charter.

Mr. Molotov said he was ready to accept this British draft if the other questions are settled.

Mr. Bevin inquired what questions he had in mind.

Mr. Molotov said the open questions before and after this article. Turning to Article 9, he said that the unagreed words were in brackets. He said they would agree to remove these brackets and accept the words therein if they could agree on the question of the withdrawal of troops.

Mr. Bevin then said he withdrew his general reservation to 8(a) which was thus adopted.

Mr. Molotov then said they might consider 8 (b) and (c) which they had not yet discussed, but before doing so he now had the new text of 1(a), which reads as follows:

“Candidates for the post of Director of Public Security shall be presented by the Council of Government.

“The appointment of a Director, from the candidates thus presented or from other persons, shall be made by the Governor after consultation with the Council of Government. He may be dismissed by the Governor also after consultation with the Council of Government.”

There was some discussion of the translation which was finally clarified.

Mr. Couve de Murville then said that in regard to paragraph 2, which had been left open he would suggest adding the words “under the immediate authority of” after “normally” so that the sentence would read “The Director of Public Security shall normally be under the immediate authority of and receive instructions from the Council of Government.”

Mr. Molotov said he liked the first French proposal better.

Mr. Bevin and Mr. Byrnes said they thought that this suggestion would be acceptable.

Mr. Molotov said he was also prepared to accept Mr. Couve de Murville’s amendment and that they should not waste any more time over this point.

Mr. Bevin said he wished to clarify one point—that if the orders of the Director went outside of the statute could he appeal to the Governor?

Mr. Molotov said he thought that point 3(c) covered that. He then said that the only outstanding question relating to the powers of the Governor was paragraph 4 of the French document or paragraph 9 of the Conference recommendation. He said he was prepared to accept this paragraph if they could agree that foreign troops should be withdrawn within four months.

Mr. Bevin remarked that in regard to paragraph 4 the word “all” before the words “appropriate measures” had been left out in the English translation.

Mr. Molotov then suggested that he would like to think over paragraph 9 but repeated that if they could agree on the withdrawal of troops he would drop his objection to the words in brackets.

Mr. Bevin said he did not think he could bargain troops against paragraph 9.

Mr. Molotov then returned to 8 (b) concerning the conduct of foreign affairs. He said there had been a Soviet amendment to add in brackets at the end of the paragraph the words “the issuance of exequaturs and letters patent”.

Mr. Bevin said he thought that the Governor should conduct the foreign relations, which would not be very extensive, in close liaison with the Council, but that since the Security Council in the last analysis was responsible for the foreign status of the territory, the Governor should have that responsibility. He proposed the following British redraft: “conduct of foreign affairs in closest consultation with the elected authorities of the territory (conclusion of treaties and other international agreements, including formalities such as the issuance of exequaturs and letters patent)

Mr. Molotov said this language was not clear since it states that the Governor should conduct foreign relations only in consultation with the elected authorities. This pushes aside the Council of Government. He said he agreed that in the major matters of foreign affairs the Governor should have the last word as a representative of the Security Council, but that in every-day current foreign relations, such as economic matters, it would be very peculiar to exclude the Government Council. It should be their duty. In major matters, he repeated, the Governor has the final say, but in daily affairs, foreign relations should be conducted by the Council of Government under the supervision of the Governor. He suggested, therefore, changing the draft to read “in closest consultation with the elected authorities which will be charged with the daily conduct of foreign relations”.

Mr. Bevin said this left out the matter of conclusion of treaties.

Mr. Molotov said he thought both the Governor and the Government Council should sign important acts or agreements in foreign affairs, but that current matters should be dealt with by the Council under the supervision of the Governor.

Mr. Byrnes said that the United States view was that the Governor, in view of his responsibilities, should be able to abrogate any treaty or agreement affecting foreign affairs made by the Government Council, which, in his opinion, violated the statute or constitution. He, therefore, proposed the following draft:

“(b) to ensure that the Government of Trieste conducts its foreign relations in conformity with the statute, constitution and laws of the Free Territory. To this end, the Governor shall have authority to prevent the entry into force of treaties, laws and decrees affecting foreign relations which in his judgment are not in conformity with the statute, constitution and laws of the Free Territory.”

Mr. Molotov said he would like to see a Russian text of that.

Mr. Bevin said he was not sure that Mr. Byrnes’ suggestion met the main point.

Mr. Byrnes explained that our position was that the day-to-day minor matters of foreign relations should be handled by the Governor [Government?] of Trieste, but that it was essential that the Governor have the right to suspend any agreement or act in this sphere which he regarded as violating the statute, constitution or laws.

Mr. Molotov said he agreed with that and if he correctly understood the amendment he thought that this question might go to the Deputies on the basis of Mr. Byrnes’ suggestion to see if they could draw up an agreed text.

Returning to 8(c) he said the Soviet had an amendment which read “except in cases where the constitution provides for election”. He inquired if this was acceptable to his colleagues. He pointed out that if the constitution contained no such provision the amendment would not change anything.

Mr. Bevin said he thought that in the present state of affairs with the tensions in Trieste it might be unwise to provide for the election of judges since it was important that confidence be established in the judiciary.

Mr. Molotov pointed out that his amendment did not provide for the election of judges, who would be appointed by the Governor unless the constitution specifically provided for such elections.

Mr. Bevin said he did not wish to take a position for or against the election of judges, but he felt that the present formula provided for the advice of the Council of Government.

Mr. Byrnes suggested that possibly they could follow the American practice and say the Governor appoints with the advice and consent of the Council.

Mr. Couve de Murville suggested possibly in this case they could say on the proposal of the Council of Government.

Mr. Molotov said that Mr. Byrnes’ proposal left the main question open which was that of the election of judges. He said he did not think they should provide for the election of judges, nor should they make it impossible for the people of Trieste to do so in their constitution if they wished. He said that they did not think they should anticipate the disposition of the question.

Mr. Bevin said that the words “on the proposal of the Council” did not exclude the possibility of an election.

Mr. Molotov disagreed since it provided only one means for electing judges. In reply to a question, he said that in the case of the Director of Police, it was obvious that no one had any intention of having him elected.

Mr. Bevin said that he would be agreeable to adding the words “in the manner prescribed by the constitution” and leaving the whole subject to what the constitution said.

Mr. Molotov repeated that if the words “appointed by the Governor without exception” were left out, it would exclude any future possibility of election.

Mr. Byrnes suggested that they say that the Governor could appoint with the consent of the Council, but that after five years the constitution might provide for the election of judges. He thought that this might be wise since he agreed with Mr. Bevin that the election of judges in the present situation might cause difficulties. As for the immediate period the Council could veto the appointment of the Governor.

Mr. Molotov said he was afraid of the extension of the right of veto.

Mr. Byrnes said he had used the word veto because he knew it would be understandable to Mr. Molotov.

Mr. Bevin repeated that he did not wish to commit himself in the election of judges, but was quite prepared to leave it to the people of Trieste to decide and, therefore, as he had said, he was willing to accept a reference to the provisions of the constitution.

Mr. Molotov said that the following draft might be acceptable: “the appointment of the judiciary on the proposal of the Council of Government unless the Constitution provides for a different manner of filling judicial posts.”

Mr. Byrnes said he had the same trouble as he had had in the case of the appointment of the Director of Police inquiring what happens in the event of a dispute.

After some further discussion, they agreed to send to the Deputies the various drafts on point 8(c) to try and work out a common text.

It was agreed that the Deputies would meet tomorrow at eleven a.m., but that because of the meetings of the General Assembly the Ministers would not meet until 4:00 p.m., Wednesday.

40. The Report of the Deputies is printed separately as document CFM(46) (NY) 16, November 18, 1946, infra.
41. Reference is to the 2nd Informal Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, November 16; see the United States Delegation Minutes of that meeting, p. 1174.
42. The United Kingdom proposal read as follows:

    “The Governor may require the Council of Government to suspend administrative measures which in his view conflict with his responsibilities as defined in the Statute (observance of the Statute; maintenance of public order and security; respect of Human Rights). Should the Council of Government object, the Governor may suspend these administrative measures and refer the whole question to the Security Council for decision.

    “In matters affecting his responsibilities as defined in the Statute the Governor may propose to the Council of Government the adoption of any administrative measures. Should the Council of Government not accept such proposals the Governor or Council of Government may, without prejudice to paragraph 9 below, refer the matter to the Security Council for decision.”