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, Eighth Informal Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 25, 1946, 4 p.m.

New York, November 25, 1946, 4 p.m.

secret

Present

	U.S.A.
	Mr. Byrnes (Chairman)
	Mr. Dunn
	Mr. Cohen
	Mr. Reber
	Mr. Bohlen
France		U.K.
M. Couve de Murville		Mr. Bevin
M. Alphand		Mr. Jebb
M. Bourin des Roziers		Lord Hood
		Mr. Sterndale-Bennett
	U.S.S.R.
	M. Molotov
	M. Vyshinsky
	M. Gusev
	M. Pavlov

Deputies’ Report

Mr. Byrnes: Gentlemen, the meeting will open and the Chairman of the Deputies’ meeting, Mr. Dunn, will make the report.

Mr. Dunn: The Deputies are submitting agreed texts of Article 16 bis and the first 8 paragraphs of recommendations for the drafting of the Permanent Statute and the instruments for the Provisional Regime and Free Port Regime.¹⁴

With respect to Article 16 bis, paragraph 3 was agreed subject to possible later revision in the light of discussions relating to the Provisional Regime. Paragraphs 4 and 5 were agreed with the understanding that the matters referred to therein are still under consideration of the Economic Experts.

The unagreed portion of paragraph 9 of the recommendations was not discussed by the Deputies. Paragraph 10 relating to citizenship clauses was not agreed and contains in brackets a proposal of the Soviet Delegation submitted as an amendment to the Conference recommendations as well as a U.S. proposal likewise in brackets. Subparagraph B of paragraph 11 was discussed but no agreements reached. The French Representative proposed an addition to the Conference recommendations to read as follows: “without prejudice to the granting of special facilities to merchant vessels of neighboring countries”. The Soviet Delegation did not agree to the Conference recommendations and proposed to amend the French proposal concerning special facilities which had been submitted to the Subcommittee for the Free Port. The U.S. and U.K. Delegations, while agreeing to the Conference recommendations, were prepared on their part to amend the French proposal for special facilities as a supplementary proposal. In their turn, they also presented amendments. The original French proposal together with the Soviet, U.K. and U.S. amendments are contained in the Secretariat report. Subparagraphs C and D of the recommendations were accepted by the French, U.K. and U.S. Delegations which stated they were further prepared to discuss railway conventions between the Free Territory and the other countries whose territories it will serve. The Soviet Delegation, however, proposed to substitute a new paragraph, the text of which is set forth in the Secretariat report, for the Conference recommendations which it has not accepted.

Mr. Byrnes: As I understand the reading of the report, there was agreement down to paragraph 9. Shall we take up this recommendation of the Deputies or take the paragraphs in disagreement?

M. Molotov: We can take them up in order to see in what channels they may be directed.

Powers of the Governor

Mr. Byrnes: I want to ask the Deputies if there are matters they have not yet considered. I am advised that they have. Let us take up paragraph 9 and see if we can reach an agreement. Are there any comments on paragraph 9?

M. Molotov: Our request is that there be at least one amendment. I suggest that the word “all” be cut out.

Mr. Byrnes: That was done by the Deputies.

M. Molotov: Then there is no other objection.

Mr. Bevin: Then the brackets go out?

Mr. Byrnes: We liquidated the brackets.

M. Molotov: Maybe they will come in handy to someone at home.

Citizenship in the Free Territory

Mr. Byrnes: Shall we consider paragraph 10?

M. Molotov: Would it not be possible to have two or three words regarding policemen? Those who served under the Mussolini regime will not make proper citizens of the Free Territory.

Mr. Byrnes: Add, “former members of the Italian Police”?

M. Molotov: “Former members of the Italian Fascist Police”. The rest is acceptable.

Mr. Bevin: Which is acceptable? The United States report?

M. Molotov: The French proposal.

Mr. Byrnes: “conditions for the acquisition of citizenship by persons not qualified for original citizenship, for instance, former members of the Italian Fascist Police”. May I suggest that instead of making this insertion that we use the original language and add, “No former members of the Italian Fascist Police shall be allowed to qualify for citizenship.” This would be a new sentence.

M. Molotov: I agree.

Mr. Bevin: What is the Fascist Police? Is it the present one?

M. Molotov: Under Mussolini.

Mr. Bevin: But suppose a man was quite innocently a policeman under the Mussolini regime?

M. Molotov: In so far as he was not whitewashed in the proper manner.

Mr. Byrnes: I think we can agree on what we mean and the Deputies can fix the language. What we mean is police not exonerated. The Deputies should be able to agree on the language.

Mr. Bevin: What happened to the United States Deputy’s proposal this morning?

Mr. Byrnes: Before we leave this other proposal, there is in 46B language applying to former officers of the Fascist Militia:

“In no case shall any officer or non-commissioned officer of the former Fascist Militia or of the former Fascist Republican Army be admitted with officer’s or non-commissioned officer’s rank to the Italian Navy, Army, Air Force or Carabinieri, with the exception of such persons as shall have been exonerated by the appropriate body in accordance with Italian law.”¹⁵

I propose that similar language be included here.

Mr. Bevin: Under that clause you don’t take away a man’s citizenship, you just say he can’t join something. Here you are taking away his citizenship.

M. Molotov: It is true. That is so.

Mr. Bevin: I can’t reconcile this with the other provision where you say he shan’t join something. Here you say he is deprived of his citizenship.

M. Molotov: He will become an Italian citizen.

M. Couve de Murville: I think in this case that one should note that the police in Trieste were not natives but were sent to Trieste to be police from other parts of Italy.

Mr. Byrnes: Is there any objection to sending this question to the Deputies to straighten out the language?

Mr. Bevin: It is because they couldn’t agree to the language that it was sent to us. I would accept the United States proposal which bases loss of citizenship on infraction of the laws. There was a military proclamation when they entered the Territory which used that basis. Under this clause, every policeman, whether guilty or not, whether proved to be Fascist or only said to be Fascist, is prohibited citizenship if he served under Mussolini. I don’t want to protect active Fascist bullies, but think the term is too wide. I don’t mind this going to the Deputies again, however. If a man is charged with Fascist crimes, that is all right, but this would prevent the poor devil going up and getting exonerated. I don’t think I could get exonerated for a lot of things if I were considered guilty before I proved my innocence. We might insert, “who have been guilty of Fascist crimes”, or something like that.

M. Molotov: So far as former members of the Fascist police, we have proposed to see that they should not acquire the new citizenship. They are now Italian citizens; let them remain so, but let us provide that they can’t be citizens of Trieste. But let us make exception for those Italian citizens whom the competent authorities have exonerated so that they can become citizens. Article 46B said that former officers of the Fascist Militia, et cetera, could not become officers of the new army, and we could provide that they not become citizens but should remain Italian citizens. We could send that to the Deputies for precision of language.

Mr. Bevin: Supposing they had been screened by the Allied Military Authorities during the occupation. Would that be all right?

M. Molotov: It was intended that the authorities of the Free Territory decide in what manner people be exonerated.

Mr. Bevin: Could we send that to the Deputies and have them let me know in the morning? Is the Soviet paragraph 10(b) withdrawn now, the one on the Deputies’ report?

M. Molotov: In place of our former amendment?

Mr. Bevin: This new one takes the place of it? I would just like to look at the wording. I don’t oppose the principle.

Mr. Byrnes: All right, we will let it pass for the morning.

M. Couve de Murville: To the Deputies or to us in the morning?

M. Molotov: It is accepted in the main.

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Bevin said he wanted to see it in writing before agreeing.

Mr. Bevin: I want to see how it is limited so that we catch the people we want and not the people who might be victimized.

M. Molotov: No objection.

Mr. Byrnes: Paragraph 11, the Free Port.

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, your paragraph 10(b) I regard as very valuable.

Mr. Byrnes: Under 10 is a United States proposal which has not been acted on. We propose to add it at the end as 10(b):

“No person who has acquired the citizenship of the Free Territory shall be deprived of his civic or political rights except as punishment for the infraction of the penal laws of the Territory.”

Mr. Bevin: I want to protect the rights of a man to go to the court.

M. Couve de Murville: It seems to me that the question here falls within the scope of the internal legislation of the Territory. It would be up to the Assembly. In the Statute we have provided that human rights be assured. Does not such a provision protect the fundamental rights of the inhabitants and give the government the right to intervene?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, but the provision here expresses certain things of a special character. Since we mention citizenship, we must say something about depriving a man of citizenship. Once citizenship has been acquired, we must state that there must be a trial before depriving a man of it. First we mentioned domicile, then paragraph 2 mentions the exceptions; then we say nothing about the person who is acquiring citizenship. That is why I think we should put “judicial” in. It fills out the sequence. The provision should read, “should be deprived of citizenship, civil, judicial, or political rights”. That would make it quite clear.

Mr. Byrnes: Do you wish to add the word “citizenship” prior to the word “civil”?

Mr. Bevin: Yes.

Mr. Byrnes: I see no objection to the insertion of “judicial”, but I don’t know whether it is necessary to add “citizenship”. But if the Council wishes, we won’t object.

M. Couve de Murville: It is a question of deprival of citizenship, and a question of losing civil and political rights. They are different questions. No system of penal law provides for deprival of citizenship for an infraction of the penal law. One may be deprived of citizenship for a political crime, however.

Mr. Bevin: All right, take “citizenship” out, I accept the paragraph as it is plus the word “judicial”.

Mr. Byrnes: Is there objection to the proposal to add “judicial” and not to add “citizenship”? I understand Mr. Bevin withdraws “citizenship”.

Mr. Bevin: That is correct.

M. Molotov: It will have no relevance to the question we are discussing now, citizenship.

Mr. Byrnes: What the proposal says is no person who has acquired the citizenship of the Free Territory shall be deprived of his citizenship except for the infraction of the judicial laws of the Territory, so it does apply to citizenship. It gives protection to one who has acquired citizenship.

M. Molotov: There is no objection to this, but it is still not relevant to the question we are discussing now, “citizenship”.

Mr. Byrnes: Well, does the Soviet Delegation agree to it, or object?

M. Molotov: No objection.

M. Couve de Murville: I am sorry we must make a reservation on that last matter.

Free Port

Mr. Byrnes: Number 11. According to my information from the Deputies, paragraph (a) is agreed. As to paragraph (b), we have the Conference proposal, and we have the Soviet amendment. It appears under “New Proposal of the Soviet Delegation on Paragraph II(b)”. The first French proposal appears on page 7. The second proposal follows. There are also the proposals of the United States and the United Kingdom.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation suggests the adoption of the French proposal plus the amendments suggested by M. Alphand at the Deputies’ meeting.

Mr. Bevin: Which French proposal? We have so many.

Mr. Byrnes: I will ask the French Delegate to read their proposal as it was changed this morning.

M. Couve de Murville: There are two paragraphs. The first one:

“In order to meet the special needs of Yugoslav and Italian shipping in the Adriatic, the Director of the Free Port, on request by the Yugoslav or Italian Governments, and with the concurring advice of the International Commission, may reserve to merchant vessels flying the flags of either of these two Governments the exclusive use of berthing spaces within certain parts of the area defined in paragraph (b) of the preceding Article.”

The second paragraph reads:

“…, without prejudice to the opportunity for merchant vessels of neighboring countries to obtain certain special facilities.”

Mr. Bevin: Is that what you are suggesting, Mr. Molotov?

M. Molotov: I ask that this question be deferred as I have not the language in writing. I will submit a proposal later.

Free Transit

Mr. Byrnes: Well, Let us pass over to page 8 and paragraph (c) regarding freedom of transit. There is a new Soviet proposal at the bottom of the page to take the place of 11(c) and 11(d). Are there any comments?

Mr. Bevin: I thought we had agreed to (c) once.

M.Molotov: When?

Mr. Bevin: Early on.

M. Molotov: It is not in our record.

Mr. Byrnes: If there is no comment, no agreement, we will have to pass on.

M. Couve de Murville: Could we redraft it? Retain sub-paragraph (c) as it is and add a new paragraph with reference to the railroad agreement between Yugoslavia and Italy:

“With a view to assuring rational and economic operation of the railroads in the Free Territory an agreement on the operation of the aforesaid railroads shall be concluded between the Government of the Free Territory and the Governments of Italy and Yugoslavia, respectively, regulating the modalities of technical help which Italy and Yugoslavia will bring to this question in the Free Territory of Trieste.”

Mr. Byrnes: You retain (c) of the original proposal, what about (d).

M. Couve de Murville: We have agreed to retain (d).

M. Molotov: Of course, the French proposal can be studied, but we must first agree on (c):

“(c) Freedom of transit shall be assured to goods and means of transport between the Free Port and the States which it serves, without any discrimination and without customs or fiscal charges, by the States whose territories are traversed.”

I suggest the deletion of “means of transport”. This is my first amendment. Can that be accepted?

Mr. Bevin: Why do you want to take it out?

M. Molotov: I don’t understand what it means. Does it mean that they shall be free to walk across each other’s territory? That is not always convenient.

M. Couve de Murville: It means empty cars on the return journey.

M. Molotov: That goes without saying. There is no need to write it.

Mr. Byrnes: Full cars as well as empty cars.

M. Molotov: Perhaps automobiles, too?

Mr. Byrnes: Buses?

M. Couve de Murville: That is in a different category, “transport of persons”. Subject to technical considerations, we can agree to the deletion of “means of transport”. It goes without saying that you can’t transport without the means.

Mr. Byrnes: Freedom of transit meant that freedom of transit was assured to goods, and originally meant railroad cars. I thought that was right. We don’t want the railroad cars to be unloaded at the border.

M. Couve de Murville: I think if you say freedom of transit for goods, you imply freedom of transit for goods with means. That is the usual language in such agreements.

Mr. Byrnes: “Freedom of transit to goods and to vehicles in which goods are carried”. Would that be acceptable?

M. Couve de Murville: I think that is the way Mr. Molotov construed it. It applied to empty and full cars.

Mr. Byrnes: Is that correct, Mr. Molotov?

M. Molotov: I seem to have understood, but I can’t guarantee it.

Mr. Byrnes: If that is agreed, what is the objection to leaving it in?

M. Molotov: I should object to freedom of transit being granted to traffic across Yugoslav territory as it is not possible without her agreement. If the words only mean empty and loaded cars, that goes without saying. There are special regulations in international railroad traffic. At the end of the paragraph I propose that we add, “on the condition of the observance of the laws of the country in question”. Without such a reservation it would be impossible for us to accept paragraph (c).

Mr. Byrnes: Before we go on, is there any objection to saying after “goods” “and railroad transport”, so that it is clear that the clause does not apply to automobiles.

M. Molotov: “Railroad transport on terms of regular international agreement”.

M. Couve de Murville: “Freedom of transit insured to goods transported by railroad in accordance with usual international agreements in that respect”.

Mr. Bevin: Suppose they were in a truck?

M. Molotov: Then an agreement has to be concluded.

M. Couve de Murville: This question of internal law is covered by international agreements since after an international agreement has been concluded it becomes part of the internal legislation of a country.

Mr. Byrnes: Our purpose is to avoid states making laws restricting free transit. If the amendment proposed by the Soviet Delegation were accepted, it would mean that any state could adopt laws destructive of the meaning of the agreement.

M. Molotov: I meant that we could not require of a country to grant conditions in contradiction with its laws, but we are in favor of freedom of transit within the bounds of the laws of any country. There may be regulations governing the crossing of the borders which should not be mentioned in a transport agreement and it is possible to imagine freedom of transit without discrimination but legislation not concerned with transit of goods.

Mr. Byrnes: The difficulty is that if we do not have insurance of this kind, the Free Territory will have a difficult time existing. This only asks the Czechoslovakians or any other country that signs the treaty that there shall be freedom of transit with the Free Territory. They could make a reservation if it was essential, but I would hope not. I wonder if it will not be possible to refer this to a small drafting commission with Czech or Yugoslav representatives that are now here. This would avoid misunderstanding.

Mr. Byrnes: There is Italy, too. They will have to go through Italy.

M. Molotov: Her opinion may be sought, too, unofficially, but this concerns her less. Couldn’t we agree in this informal manner? If we can, the Soviet Delegation will vote for this clause.

Mr. Byrnes: Certainly. Italy and Austria are interested, and Hungary.

M. Couve de Murville: With regard to Hungary, an ex-enemy state with whom we are concluding a treaty, I think it would be useful to insert such a clause in that treaty now, and if in the future we draw up a treaty with Austria, we could include a reference to freedom of transport in that treaty.

M. Molotov: Perhaps we could ask the French Delegation to consult with the Czechoslovaks and whatever they accept, we shall accept.

M. Couve de Murville: We have no objection to conferring with the Czechoslovaks and Yugoslavs.

M. Molotov: We shall vote for what they agree on.

Mr. Byrnes: Shall we agree that the French Delegation approach the Czechoslovak and Yugoslav representatives on this?

Mr. Bevin: I think it would be unfair on one Delegation.

Mr. Byrnes: Why not refer it to the Economic Commission?

Mr. Bevin: There is a Trieste Commission which is meeting this afternoon. Why not refer it to them?

M. Molotov: The Trieste Commission for the Statute?

Mr. Bevin: Well, it is all part of the same business. They can deal with it. I take it there is a basis of agreement on freedom of transport.

M. Molotov: All right.

Mr. Byrnes: The Trieste Committee then. They can meet tomorrow morning.

M. Molotov: Provided that the Committee considers also the French addition presented today.

M. Couve de Murville: On railroad agreements?

M. Molotov: Yes. With the participation of the Czechoslovaks and Yugoslavs.

Mr. Bevin: We should consult Italy.

M. Molotov: All right.

Mr. Byrnes: Before we met, Mr. Bevin said he had an engagement, and at any time he can request adjournment. We will have to agree. He must go to a party.

Mr. Bevin: I can go on until 6:30, or adjourn now if you like.

M. Molotov: We will adjourn until tomorrow then.

The meeting adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

14. The texts under reference here were set forth in document CFM(46) (NY)28, November 25, 1946, infra. This document was the basis of discussion for this meeting of the Council.
15. The article quoted here is 46a, a new article proposed for inclusion in the Peace Treaty with Italy by the Paris Peace Conference; see vol. iv, p. 900.