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 Informal Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 28, 1946, 5 p.m.

New York, November 28, 1946, 5 p.m.

secret

Present

	U.S.S.R.
	M. Molotov (Chairman)
	M. Vyshinsky
	M. Gusev
	M. Pavlov
U.S.A.		U.K.
Mr. Byrnes		Mr. Bevin
Mr. Connally		Mr. Jebb
Mr. Vandenberg		Mr. Sterndale-Bennett
Mr. Dunn
Mr. Cohen
Mr. Bohlen
	France
	M. Couve de Murville
	M. Alphand
	M. Bonnet

Agenda

M. Molotov: Will the Acting Chairman of the Deputies make his report.

M. Gusev: The Deputies considered Article 16 of the Italian Treaty in accordance with their instructions. Their task was to ascertain what points were agreed upon and not agreed upon. Certain difficulties were encountered in the course of the discussion because the Soviet Delegation had been working upon the text of the Paris Conference recommendations whereas the U.S., U.K., and French Delegations had new wordings of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5 of Article 16 bis which differed from the original text. Since the new wordings had not been submitted as official conference documents and since the Soviet Delegation had not studied this language, further discussion on this subject was deferred pending translation and circulation.⁹⁵

The Deputies then prepared a list of unagreed-upon articles in the Italian Treaty.⁹⁶ They referred Annex 9 and Annex 13 to the Economic Experts. The Deputies were unable to consider the other questions referred to them and agreed to meet on November 25 at 11:00 a.m.

Mr. Byrnes: As I understand the report, the Deputies did nothing. There is a difference in the Russian and English texts of Article 16 bis in that there is a statement in the English text to the effect that Italy and Yugoslavia undertake to give to the Free Territory the guarantees set out in Annex …⁹⁷ This does not appear in the Russian text; therefore, the Deputies argued for a long time and got nothing done. When we discussed the question of the French frontier, there was no hesitancy in coming to agreement on the wording of the annexes concerning the furnishing of electricity and water. The Soviet Delegation agreed to the establishment of the Free Territory. Surely, it does not want the City of Trieste to be without water and electricity. If we argue these points, we would be here until Christmas. That is why such matters should be sent to the appropriate experts. I do object, however, to sending things to the Deputies without giving them proper instructions. The Deputies argued for an hour and forty minutes on these two lines. It will be hard to make progress if we proceed along these lines. What we have to determine is whether we want a treaty or not. According to my information there are 28 articles outstanding and 8 unsettled annexes. If we work like the Deputies did this morning on these questions, we will be here until 1950.

M. Molotov: I do not have such a pessimistic view of the work of the Deputies. I have nothing to add to Mr. Byrnes’ remark as to whether we wish to have the treaties or not. With reference to Article 16, the Deputies encountered difficulties since the Soviet Delegation had in mind the proposal contained in the Paris Conference recommendations and since the other Delegations were working on a redraft of these proposals. This redraft does not differ substantially from the original, but the Soviet Delegation must become familiar with the language before it can proceed. I think it is useful that the Deputies have drawn up a list of unagreed-upon questions.

Article 3—Frontier Between Italy and Yugoslavia

Mr. Bevin: This is a simple matter. The French drew up the line, and the Soviet Delegation has objected to it.⁹⁸

M. Molotov: I have no objection to the line as it appears on the map, but there is no detailed description of it. Instructions should be given to the Deputies to draw up the description. It is only a question of Merna.

Mr. Bevin: The French have always said that the line should run to the east of Highway No. 55. If you take the Soviet proposal, the line cuts right across the road linking Gorizia and Trieste. This would create customs barriers.

M. Molotov: Mr. Bevin states that Merna should remain in Italy, but according to the U.S. proposal Merna remains in Yugoslavia.

Mr. Bevin: I didn’t say that Merna should be in Italy. It is only a question of the road—Highway No. 55. Merna itself remains in Italy. If you adopt the French [-Soviet?] proposal, the road crosses into Yugoslavia and then comes back into Italy. This would create two customs barriers.

Mr. Byrnes: The U.S. proposal is contained in page 8 of the Treaty.⁹⁹ It has not been discussed by the CFM. When the original U.S. proposal was compared with the French proposal it was found that the language was not in accord with the language agreed upon in the CFM. The text was consequently changed in order to bring it into conformity with the French line. The U.S. Delegation will leave it to the French Delegation to define the line and will abide by the French decision.

M. Couve de Murville: This is not a complicated question. The French line was drawn on a map with a scale of one to 500,000. The line was a wide ink line and consequently the delimitation was not precise. According to this map the line passes between the town of Merna and the railroad. Between Merna and the railroad runs Highway 55, connecting Gorizia and Monfalcone, both of which remain in Italy. When we drew up the detailed description of the line we provided for the highway to remain in Italy because the two cities were in Italy.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation agrees to this proposal.

Article 4—Frontier Between Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste

M. Molotov: There is no detailed description of this line, and one should be prepared. I suggest that the Deputies discuss it.

Mr. Bevin: There is an outline description on page 5b.¹ I agree that it go to the Deputies.

M. Molotov: This description has not been agreed upon.

The CFM agreed that Article 4 be referred to the Deputies.

Article 10a—Austro-Italian Agreement of September 5, 1946²

M. Molotov: I stated yesterday that we might reach agreement on this article if we reach agreement on the question of the railroads between Yugoslavia and Trieste.

Mr. Bevin: This seems like horse trading to me.

M. Molotov: I do not know how to horse trade.

Mr. Byrnes: Find me a horse trader as hard as you are, and I will give him a gold medal.

M. Molotov: I am learning.

Mr. Bevin: God help us when you have learned!

M. Molotov: I am learning from you. I guess this question remains in disagreement.

Article 16, Paragraph 2—Frontier Between Yugoslavia and the Free Territory

M. Molotov: There is a U.S. proposal on this matter.³

Mr. Bevin: I understand that the text contained on page 24 had been agreed to.⁴

M. Molotov: It is not an agreed-upon text. Shall we send it to the Deputies?

M. Couve de Murville: There is a detailed description which was prepared by the French Delegation and agreed to in Paris.

Mr. Byrnes: That is my recollection. I thought we had agreed to the French proposal. It is contained in my treaty on white paper and not blue.

M. Molotov: We agreed to a line on a map, but we have not agreed to any textual description. At Paris the Soviet Delegation suggested different language for one of the paragraphs of the French proposal. The Deputies can work out this matter.

Mr. Bevin: The four Deputies met in Paris and agreed to the proposal. It went forward to the Conference as an agreed-upon text. At that time there was disagreement on Merna, but that question is now settled.

M. Molotov: Merna does not relate to the Yugoslav-Trieste frontier. The line for this frontier was agreed upon, but not the description. I am not aware of the decision Mr. Bevin has referred to.

Mr. Byrnes: The description was agreed to by the Deputies but not by the CFM.

Mr. Bevin: There is some confusion here. The French proposal covered the entire line, and when this was being discussed there was a dispute over Merna. I was advised that the line was agreed to.

Mr. Byrnes: If the Soviet Delegation objects to any part of the line, let us send the description to the Deputies.

M. Vyshinsky: The Deputies considered this question on September 11, at which time Mr. Dunn withdrew his description. No proposals were accepted, and the question remained unsettled. There was no dispute as to the line itself, but the description of it was not agreed to. The Deputies could not come to agreement on Merna, and we agreed that the whole question should remain open.⁵

The Ministers referred this paragraph to the Deputies.

Article 16, Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the U.S. Proposal

M. Molotov: These paragraphs have been submitted to the Deputies for study.

Mr. Bevin: There is a U.S. text as well as the original Paris recommendation.⁶

Mr. Byrnes: What is the proposal? To send it to the Deputies without definite instructions is the same thing as sending it downstairs and up again.

M. Molotov: I understand that the two texts do not differ substantially. I suggest that we ask the Deputies to ascertain whether they are in fact different. If they are not, our objections will disappear.

Mr. Byrnes: There is only a change in line 5. That line caused you and me to stay up an hour later in Paris. There is nothing new in the American text which was not discussed at the Conference, and the Conference took the position that the CFM should consider Article 16 bis.

Mr. Bevin: If the Deputies took the two drafts and molded them into one, we would have a clear picture. I suggest that the Deputies draw up one good draft. There should be no difficulty in this as there are no differences in principle.

M. Molotov: Does this concern paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5?

Mr. Bevin: It concerns the entire text of 16 bis and the U.S. redraft thereof.

The Ministers agreed that the Deputies should draw up a clean draft of Article 16 bis.

Paragraph 9—Powers of the Governor

M. Molotov: I request that this question be postponed.

Mr. Bevin: Till when?

M. Molotov: Till one of our next meetings.

Article [Paragraph] 10 bis—Citizenship

M. Molotov: We requested the Deputies to examine this question.

Mr. Bevin: I agree. We also requested them to examine paragraphs 11 and 12.

M. Molotov: I believe that we asked them to consider 10 and 11. 11a is our next item.

(Although it was not stated so definitely, it seemed clear that the Ministers agreed that paragraphs 10 (citizenship) and 11 (Free Port and Economic Questions) should be referred to the Deputies).

Paragraph 11a—Provisional Government⁷

M. Molotov: I want to ask whether the wording we discussed the other day is acceptable. The Paris Conference recommendation refers to the Security Council. We wish to replace the Security Council by the CFM and to add that the Security Council would appoint the Governor at the suggestion of the CFM and define his functions.

Mr. Byrnes: We approved changing the word “organized” to the word “drafted” and to delete the words, “in particular”.⁸

M. Molotov: There seems to be some misunderstanding. The words “in particular” do not appear in the Article.

Mr. Byrnes: We all agreed yesterday to cut the words “in particular” out.

M. Molotov: It is a question of paragraph a as contained in the Paris recommendations. There is a Soviet amendment of November 23. We considered it and did not approve it. It read “from the date of the entry into force of the Treaty until the entry into force of the Permanent Statute the Provisional Government of the Free Territory will be organized by the CFM and approved by the Security Council, which at the suggestion of the CFM will appoint a Governor and define his powers.”⁹

Mr. Bevin: I suggest we delete the words, “at the suggestion of the CFM”.

M. Molotov: I think it would be preferable to state that the Security Council appoints the Governor at the suggestion of the CFM.

Mr. Bevin: What exactly do you mean by the words, “at the suggestion of the CFM”?

M. Molotov: I mean “on the presentation of the CFM”.

Mr. Bevin: I cannot agree to that. It is entirely up to the Security Council to make this appointment. I made a different proposal yesterday to the effect that the Provisional Government would be organized and conducted in accordance with an instrument which would contain a description of the powers of the Governor which would be prepared by the CFM and approved by the Security Council. The Security Council would appoint the Governor.

M. Molotov: We should have a written text of this British proposal. Yesterday we discussed another proposal which was a combined one. I am not prepared to discuss this matter now.

M. Couve de Murville: There seems to be some confusion which comes from paragraph 4 of the U.S. text in the combined U.S.-Soviet text which was approved yesterday and paragraph a of the Paris Conference recommendations. Paragraph a does not add anything except the sentence about the appointment of a governor. This should be deleted and added to paragraph a of the U.S. proposal.

M. Molotov: I suggest that we postpone discussion of this question.

Paragraph 11b¹⁰—Withdrawal of Troops

M. Molotov: I suggest that we pass over this question.

Provisional Regime. Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste

M. Molotov: I understand that we have not yet begun to prepare a statute.

Mr. Bevin: Cannot somebody undertake this task?

M. Couve de Murville: I am ready to propose the creation of a commission to draw up the Statute which would be based on what we have already approved. There are some exceptions, of course, such as the clauses on the Free Port, citizenship, and paragraph 9.

The Ministers agreed to the establishment of such a commission to be composed of Messrs. Novikov, Sterndale-Bennett, Reber, Wolfrom, and Gros.

M. Couve de Murville: The Committee should take as its basis the provisions of the draft statute, that is, Article 1 of the French proposal and all the articles agreed upon by us. They would appear to be paragraphs 1 to 8, inclusive.

M. Molotov: What has been agreed upon by us will remain in force.

Clauses on the Free Port of Trieste

Mr. Bevin: Two points in this respect have been referred to the Deputies. However, the Statute itself is not being prepared. Could we not instruct the Committee to work out these Statutes?

The Ministers agreed to Mr. Bevin’s proposal.

The Ministers adjourned at 7:45 p.m. and agreed to meet at 4:00 on Monday.

95. For the Record of Decisions of the 120th Meeting of the Deputies, November 28, 1946, see supra.
96. The list appears as Annex 3 to the document cited in footnote 95 above.
97. Reference here is to the alternative texts to article 16 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy which were proposed by the Soviet Delegation and the French, United States, and United Kingdom Delegations and were included as annexes to the Record of Decisions of the Deputies meeting but are not printed. The blank after the word “Annex” appears in the source text.
98. For more information regarding the difference between the description of the Italian-Yugoslav boundary proposed by the Soviet Delegation and the proposal of the French Delegation, which was supported by the United States and United Kingdom Delegations, see footnote 4, p. 970.
99. For the United States proposal for article 3 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy under reference here, see vol. iv, p. 3.
1. The Draft Peace Treaty with Italy which was referred to the Paris Peace Conference by the Council of Foreign Ministers included, under article 4, a United States proposal describing the proposed boundary between Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste; see vol. iv, p. 4. This detailed description of the frontier in question was not considered by the Paris Conference. In a report of the Drafting Committee to the Deputies on October 22, 1946, reviewing the status of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, the United States proposal for the description of the frontier between Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste was included as page 5b. The Drafting Committee Report is not printed.
2. The article under reference, as included in the Recommendations of the Paris Peace Conference, is printed in vol. iv, p. 893. For the Council’s previous discussion of this article, see the United States Delegation Minutes of the Council’s 1st Meeting. November 4. 1946, p. 969.
3. The United States proposal for a description of the boundary between Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste was included under article 16 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy referred to the Peace Conference by the Council; see vol. iv, p. 9.
4. The reference here is to a description of the boundary in question proposed by the French Delegation and included in a report from the Drafting Committee to the Deputies, October 22, 1946, not printed. The description is virtually identical with that which was subsequently agreed to by the Deputies and the Council as set forth in document CFM(46) (NY)72, December 11, 1946; see footnote 42, p. 1533.
5. At their 113th Meeting in Paris, September 11, 1946, the Deputies considered a Report of the Commission of Experts on the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste (CFM(D) (46) 191), not printed, which set forth a detailed description of the Free Territory. The Deputies were unable to reach agreement on the details of the proposed description of the boundary in the Merna area, and it was agreed that the Deputies should consult their respective Ministers separately on the question. At their 115th Meeting, September 19, 1946, the Deputies agreed that the French and Soviet experts should be asked to find a form of words taking account of the respective points of view of the two delegations in giving a detailed description of the so-called “French line” in the vicinity of Merna. Should the experts fail to agree, the question would be reexamined by the Deputies. No further meetings of the Deputies were held at Paris, and the question does not appear to have been considered further. For the relevant portions of the United States Delegation Minutes of the Deputies’ meetings under reference here, see vol. iii, pp. 428 and 488.
6. The United States proposal under reference was that for article 16, Part a, of the Recommendations by the Paris Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, vol. iv, p. 895. The revisions proposed by the United States Delegation to that original text are not printed.
7. The item under reference at this point (Provisional Government) was included in the French proposals for article 16 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy as recommended to the Council by the Paris Peace Conference; see vol. iv, p. 897. The identification of this item as paragraph 11a, appears to be in error.
8. The decision to replace the word “organized” with the word “drafted” in point a of the provisions for Provisional Government in the French proposals for article 16 was discussed at the 5th Informal Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, November 21; see the United States Delegation Minutes, p. 1215. At their 6th Informal Meeting, November 22, the Council agreed to delete the words “in particular” from paragraph 5 of the French proposals for article 16; see the United States Delegation Minutes, p. 1235.
9. The proposed wording quoted here by Foreign Minister Molotov was included in the proposed text for article 16 submitted by the Soviet Delegation at the 120th Meeting of the Deputies, November 23; the Soviet text is not printed.
10. The reference here to 11b is in error. The item under reference is point b of the provision for Provisional Government in the French proposal for article 16 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy.