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, Tenth Informal Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 27, 1946, 5 p.m.

New York, November 27, 1946, 5 p.m.

secret

Present

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

Agenda and Purpose of the Meeting

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I suggested that we should come here so that we could see upon what matters we had agreed during our discussions and turn them over to the Deputies.

M. Couve de Murville: Is the object of the present meeting to survey all that was discussed yesterday and determine the points we have agreed so that we can then turn them over to the Deputies for formal drafting?

Mr. Byrnes: Yes, that was my thought—that what we have heretofore discussed could be given to the Deputies for drafting, such matters as the withdrawal of troops.

M. Molotov: Will it not be possible to await the arrival of my Deputy?

M. Couve de Murville: Certainly, and while we are waiting, we can take up subjects on which there is no agreement.

Withdrawal of Troops

Mr. Byrnes: What I had in mind was that on the question of withdrawal of troops there was agreement in principle although there was no agreement on the language—ninety days after the Governor takes office he will announce whether in his opinion it is necessary that troops remain or can be withdrawn. If he determines that they can safely be withdrawn, they shall be allowed time for such withdrawal.

M. Couve de Murville: Let us begin with an easy question, that is, the time period for the withdrawal of the troops, provided the United States and United Kingdom Delegations have sufficient information to discuss the question.

Mr. Bevust: I have tried a draft and it has been circulated.³⁰

M. Molotov: I should like to ask you if it is as laid down yesterday, that is, that the number of troops of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Yugoslavia which are to remain until withdrawal are not to exceed 5,000 each?

M. Couve de Murville: That was what was said yesterday.

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, let us see if we can agree on what was agreed yesterday:

“Ninety days after the Governor takes office, he will announce whether in his opinion it is necessary that the troops remain or can be withdrawn. If he determines that they can safely be withdrawn they shall be allowed time for such withdrawal, which time shall be determined by our military authorities as necessary to accomplish withdrawal. If the Governor announces that in his opinion it would be unwise for the troops to be withdrawn at that time, they will remain until he concludes that conditions permit their withdrawal and that they shall be withdrawn within . . . . . days. The time allowed for such withdrawals shall be determined by the military authorities.

“From the time of the ratification of the treaty, troops within the area shall be reduced to 5,000 for the U.K., 5,000 for the U.S. and 5,000 for Yugoslavia. Whenever withdrawal takes place all troops shall be simultaneously withdrawn.”

All I want to know is if this statement contains in principle what we agreed to.

M. Couve de Murville: So we have the text both of Mr. Bevin and Mr. Byrnes on the same question, the withdrawal of troops. We might first settle the question of the number of troops, that is, 5,000 each. I take it that is settled.

M. Molotov: I consider Mr. Bevin’s proposal acceptable with the addition of Mr. Byrnes’ statement. Let us leave the drafting to the Deputies. I have the impression that the statements of Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Bevin are in substance the same.

Mr. Byrnes: There is no difference from the proposal of Mr. Molotov. It was really what he proposed to me. There is complete agreement amongst us. As for the United States statement, there was no attempt to set it in final form.

M. Molotov: I can’t ascribe authority of that text to myself. It was more Mr. Byrnes’ proposal.

M. Couve de Murville: We will refer the two texts to the Deputies.

Mr. Byrnes: I was going to say that it was my intent to state what I thought were the several agreements we arrived at and have the statement discussed, if that was the wish of the Council.

M. Couve de Murville: It would be best to take each point in turn.

Appointment of the Governor and Elections; Provisional Government

Mr. Byrnes: On the question of the appointment of the Governor:

“The Governor shall be appointed by the Security Council after consultation with representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy.”

There was no question on that.

My next proposal is that

“When the Governor takes office he will appoint from the inhabitants of the Free Territory a Council of Government, and during the period of the provisional government he shall direct the Government of the Free Territory after consultation with the Council of Government.”

Mr. Bevin: I have circulated a draft on that also.³¹

Mr. Byrnes: My statement was not a draft, simply a report on what happened in my room.

M. Molotov: I did not quite understand what was proposed. Is it this text which has been distributed?

Mr. Byrnes: My statement was simply a memorandum of what was discussed. We should leave to the Deputies the settlement of the language of what it stated.

M. Molotov: Then I would like to ask what is considered to be the agreement?

Mr. Byrnes: The question is if there is agreement in principle to this statement:

“The Governor shall be appointed by the Security Council after consultation with representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy.”

“When the Governor takes office he will appoint from the inhabitants of the Free Territory a Council of Government, and during the period of the provisional government he shall direct the Government of the Free Territory after consultation with the Council of Government.”

M. Molotov: Then that does not seem to be quite what was agreed to. I thought the Council of Government was appointed thus—the Council was appointed by the Governor after consultation with representatives of Italy and Yugoslavia. Secondly, the provisions of the Permanent Statute which are relevant to the interim regime should operate as the temporary statute.

Mr. Byrnes: There is no question on the latter statement, and I have it later on: “When the Governor appoints the Council of Government, he should consult with the representatives of Italy and Yugoslavia and we agree that the Deputies should be so instructed.”

M. Molotov: Then my understanding of what we have agreed is as follows: we are now about to adopt two decisions—the first that the provisional Council of Government should be appointed by the Governor after consultation with the representatives of Yugoslavia and Italy; secondly, that the relevant parts of the Permanent Statute should apply as a provisional statute.

Mr. Byrnes: “As to the Provisional Government, Mr. Molotov and Mr. Byrnes agreed that the Governor and the Provisional Council of Government shall, so far as practicable, exercise their authority in the manner provided in the statute.

“Mr. Bevin stated that he had some days ago offered a paper setting forth a number of powers which, in his opinion, should be granted to the Governor and the Provisional Council.”

“The United States had at the same time offered a paper on the subject. Mr. Byrnes stated that he thought most of the matters included in the United States paper had now been agreed to, but suggested that we agree to the statement as to the powers of the Governor first above-named, and then the Deputies be directed to examine the papers of the United Kingdom and the United States to see if there were any matters not covered by subsequent agreements,”

Mr. Bevin: When I circulated this draft I did not put in anything about the Statute. I thought it would come out in the Deputies’ report. I did agree with Mr. Molotov that the relevant parts of the Statute should apply, but that we should also see what other points needed to be covered. One question which has not been discussed yet is the statement that the Council of Government should be appointed from among the residents of the Free Territory.

M. Molotov: I agree with Mr. Bevin’s statement. I apologize. I have certain misgivings with regard to Mr. Bevin’s text. I suggest we accept the first four lines, that is, that we come to a full stop after the words, “Provisional Council of Government”. That will be enough. I don’t mind if the Deputies go into this text once more to see what is lacking. Perhaps they can tell by the number of articles.

M. Couve de Murville: I think we had better take the questions in turn. First, the appointment of the Council of Government. We have the four lines of the United Kingdom proposal to which Mr. Molotov alluded, “… and selected from among the local inhabitants”. The second is the question Mr. Byrnes spoke of—application of the Permanent Statute in the provisional period: “The relevant parts of the Permanent Statute shall apply during the provisional period so far as there is nothing else provided for”.

Mr. Byrnes: I repeat that is my understanding of what Mr. Molotov said he agreed to. The Governor and the provisional Council of Government should exercise the power so far as possible as provided in the Permanent Statute.

M. Molotov: In the main that is quite right.

Mr. Byrnes: Then most of the provisions set forth in the paper we submitted a few days ago³² are provided, but as Mr. Bevin said, we ought to review the United Kingdom draft to see if any of the provisions listed in it ought to be included.

Now, as to the elections—Mr. Molotov said that he would agree that the elections be held not later than four months after the date the Governor takes office. Mr. Bevin said that the elections should take place under the direction of the Governor and the Council of Government. Mr. Molotov said he would agree to that.

M.Molotov: I agree.

Mr. Bevin: Our view is stated in my draft. There may be circumstances which we cannot now foresee which would make it desirable to postpone the elections beyond four months from the time the Governor takes office. I don’t want to postpone them, but I think a longer time than four months may be required for organizing it. I think I can agree to the draft which Mr. Byrnes has just read, but I would like to study it.

M. Molotov: I think what Mr. Byrnes has suggested is enough and exactly what we agreed to yesterday.

Mr. Byrnes: There is one other matter which is not clear. Mr. Molotov and I discussed civil aviation.

Mr. Bevin: What happened to the previous point? Is it gone?

Mr. Byrnes: To the Deputies?

Mr. Bevin: If Mr. Molotov says he has accepted the statement, then the Deputies cannot discuss it. I don’t want to postpone the elections, but if there is no safety valve, the boiler may burst.

M. Molotov: We have one, the emergency powers of the Governor. It is not necessary to refer to them in connection with the elections.

M. Couve de Murville: Yes, the situation Mr. Bevin fears would come under the case of an exceptional circumstance of force majeure and the Governor would exercise exceptional powers. We might refer the question to the Deputies as Mr. Byrnes has stated.

Mr. Bevin: I was not regarding this as an emergency. I was thinking of the government machinery not working right, or the electoral rolls not being completed. There might be a necessary delay of a fortnight or so. As it is here stated it means that they must hold the elections even if they are not ready. I don’t mind having the Deputies look at it if you think it is covered.

M. Couve de Murville: Shall we have the Deputies examine this point to see if it raises any serious difficulties?

M. Molotov: We had better not increase the number of questions for the Deputies. We are thinking of sending two deputies to their next meeting.

M. Couve de Murville: I think then that we have completed the question of Trieste and the Statute.

Mr. Bevin: No, there is the question of Allied military control pending the assumption of office of the Governor. Pending the Governor’s assumption of office, the Allied military control should be continued by the United Kingdom, the United States, and Yugoslav military authorities in their respective zones. I think this must be covered.

M. Molotov: I agree.

M. Couve de Murville: Shall we refer this to the Deputies for final wording?

Mr. Byrnes: There is informal agreement that we should do all that is possible before ratification to have the Security Council agree on a Governor.

M. Couve de Murville: The best way to put this in writing will be to have made minutes of the record of the proceedings of the Council of Foreign Ministers. Maybe we could entrust the Deputies with the drawing up of these minutes.

Mr. Bevin: The deputies of the Deputies.

Mr. Byrnes: That is all I recall of our agreements. I am not recalling the discussions we engaged in.

Reparations From Hungary

M. Molotov: We all agreed on the Hungarian reparations.

Mr. Byrnes: I did not go into matters outside the treaty. As to the Hungarian reparations, I entrusted that to the careful and prayerful consideration of the Soviet Delegate. I hope they have been reduced. I said I would agree to his decision.

M. Molotov: It is too late. It has been signed.

Mr. Byrnes: Then I agreed. If after he had prayed, he did not reduce them, I would agree to it.

State Enterprises; Civil Aviation (Article 71 of Italian Treaty)³³

Mr. Byrnes: If we are referring to the other treaties, I did discuss Article 71 with the Soviet Delegate. This deals with state enterprises and civil aviation. I understand Mr. Molotov did agree with the provision that “… states, in their opinion, agreements won’t affect national defense”.

M. Molotov: That is true.

Mr. Byrnes: We might discuss it and see if Article 71 of the Italian treaty would apply to the others.

M. Molotov: In connection with what Mr. Byrnes has said I agree fully. He reproduced exactly what was discussed. Article 71 as embodied in the recommendations of the Conference, add one sentence to this article. I am reading paragraph 1, sub-paragraph “c” of the recommendations of the Conference—at the end, add the following: “The provisions of this article cannot affect the interests of national defense of the country”.

Mr. Bevin: All of “c”?

M. Molotov: On this condition the Soviet Delegation agrees to all of “c” without amendment both for Italy and the other countries.

M. Couve de Murville: There are two sub-paragraphs of “c”.

M. Molotov: Yes, yes. There was one sub-paragraph; now there will will be two. I take the recommendation of the Conference.

M. Couve de Murville: There are two paragraphs under Article 71.

M. Molotov: The rest as in Article 71. I suggest my amendment to paragraph 1, sub-paragraph “c”. It consisted of only one; now there will be two.

M. Couve de Murville: No, it is not clear yet. There are two subparagraphs in paragraph “c”; first, the paragraph on monopolies, for which there was a recommendation by simple majority; and a second sub-paragraph regarding civil aviation, for which there was a two-thirds majority. I think Mr. Molotov accepts only the second paragraph provided there is this insertion regarding national defense.

M. Molotov: With regard to the Soviet amendment regarding monopolies, we withdraw it on the assumption thereby that the amendments of the United Kingdom and France be withdrawn, also the United States amendment. With regard to the question of civil aviation, we accept it as it appears in paragragh “c” of the Conference recommendations, and to this paragraph which is contained in “1”, sub-paragraph “c” we add a second paragraph. Item 2 remains unchanged.

(There was an exchange between M. Couve de Murville and M. Molotov here on the place in the text and its contents, and M. Molotov agreed that there was a new sub-paragraph for which he had not accounted.)

M. Molotov: It seems that we can’t extricate ourselves from the text. I referred only to the recommendations by a two-thirds majority or more, but I understand that there are other recommendations by a simple majority. The suggestion I made was to make an addition to the Conference recommendation backed by a two-thirds vote. As to the recommendations by a simple majority, I contest them and think them unadvisable. I consider that we should keep the former wording of this article as it appeared in the draft presented by the Council of Foreign Ministers. Is it clear now?

Mr. Bevin: We are discussing paragraph “c”?

M. Molotov: I am prepared to repeat my statement as there are certain vague points.

Mr. Bevin: Could I have the wording. It is difficult to follow.

M. Molotov: I propose that we accept the text of a new Article 71 with paragraphs “a”, “b”, “c” of the original draft presented by the Council of Foreign Ministers, and in particular that the eighteen months’ period remain; then that this article be amplified by paragraph “c” of the recommendations of the Conference backed by a two-thirds vote, “It is further understood that this paragraph, et cetera” supplemented by a second sentence proposed by the Soviet Delegation, “The provisions of this article cannot affect the interests of national defense of the country”. Then nothing else will remain in paragraph 1 of this article. The second paragraph of the article has been agreed to.

Mr. Byrnes: You say, “the provisions of this article”? I thought you meant provisions of this paragraph shall not affect national defense.

M. Molotov: Yes, that is correct. I have in view civil aviation.

Mr. Byrnes: Then I suggest you say “paragraph”.

M. Molotov: All right.

Mr. Bevin: I suggest that you make civil aviation a separate paragraph “d”.

M. Couve de Murville: Then there will remain paragraph “c”:

“Nationals of the United Nations, including juridical persons, shall be granted national and most-favoured-nation treatment in all matters pertaining to commerce, industry, shipping and other forms of business activity within Italy.”

M. Molotov: Accepted.

M. Couve de Murville: We agree to paragraph “c” and “d” in this draft?

Mr. Bevin: Does that include your article on neighboring countries? Do you withdraw “neighboring countries”?

M. Molotov: Yes.

Mr. Byrnes: Does that include all the treaties?

M. Couve de Murville: The same wording for all treaties?

M. Molotov: I hope this advances us quite a bit.

M. Couve de Murville: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Byrnes: We have some reports from the Economic Commission. Can we approved them?

The Danube

Mr. Bevin: There is the question of the Danube. Mr. Molotov stated that he would give us a statement.

M. Molotov: I would like to present a statement which I believe can be accepted as a decision of the CFM. It should not necessarily be incorporated in the treaty.

(Mr. Molotov circulated a statement³⁴)

Mr. Bevin: Why should not Greece be included on this conference?

M. Molotov: When Greece becomes a Danubian state, it will be invited. Do you think that Greece will expand that much?

Mr. Bevin: I did not assume that Greece would move its frontiers up to the Danube, but it has shipping interests. Your list is limited to the riparian states—apart from the Big Four. Greece has great interests on the Danube.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation believes that this proposal is in line with the Paris Conference recommendation.

Mr. Bevin: I see that the Ukraine is to be invited, and I therefore thought that an invitation should be extended to the Greeks.

Mr. Byrnes: The Paris Conference recommended the adoption of Article 34³⁵ by 15 votes to 6. I hope the Soviet Delegation can agree to the principle contained in this article which encourages all those countries engaged in shipping on the Danube.

M. Molotov: When I stated that the Soviet proposal was in harmony with the Paris recommendation I had in mind the paragraph concerning the Danubian conference. There is no need to include in the treaty the paragraph dealing with the principle of equality since there is no restriction to this principle at the present time, and there is no need to fear a restriction in the future. If my colleagues desire, we can call this Conference within the next six months.

Mr. Byrnes: I am willing to accept your proposal if you will include paragraph 1 of the Paris Conference recommendation and exclude paragraph 2. Both paragraphs should be included, but I would prefer the inclusion of paragraph 1.

M. Molotov: It is impossible to accept paragraph 1 without amending it. However, amendments thereto would take time to discuss.

Mr. Bevin: The trouble now is that no nation can obtain cargo on the Danube. No one can trade there since they are handicapped by existing trade agreements.

Mr. Byrnes: I thought that we had agreed before the Paris Conference that the principle of equality on the Danube should be referred to the Deputies with a direction that they should work something out. However, the Deputies could not come to agreement on language and nothing was done.

M. Molotov: Are you referring to CFM document no. 172 of June 29?³⁶ Let me reflect on this proposal.

M. Couve de Murville: I suggest that we postpone discussion on this point in order to give us time to study the Soviet text.

(The Ministers agreed to postpone consideration of this question).

Reports of Economic Experts

(The Ministers agreed to defer discussion of these reports until tomorrow.)

Italian Reparations

(The Ministers agreed to defer consideration of this question until tomorrow.)

Agenda for the Meeting of November 28

The Ministers agreed that their agenda for November 28 would consist of the following items:

1) Report of the Economic Experts

2) The Danube

3) Italian Reparations.

The Ministers agreed to reconvene on November 28 at 4:00 p.m., and also agreed that the Deputies should meet at 11:00 a.m.

30. The draft under reference cannot be identified further.

31. The proposal referred to here by Bevin is presumably the same as the British proposal discussed by the Deputies at their 122nd Meeting, November 28, 1946. According to the American records of that meeting, the proposal read as follows:

    “Upon his arrival in the Free Territory the Governor shall be empowered to select from among the residents of the Free Territory, after consultation with the Governments of Yugoslavia and Italy, a Provisional Council of Government to assist him in the fulfillment of his executive, administrative and legislative authority pending the entry into force of the Constitution and the formation of a Council of Government as provided therein.” (CFM Files, Lot M–88, Box 2067, USDEL Deputies Minutes)

32. Document CFM(46) (NY)22, November 22, 1946, p. 1251.
33. Under discussion during this portion of the meeting was article 71 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy; for the text of the article as originally referred to the Peace Conference by the Council, see vol. iv, p. 33. For the modifications of this article as recommended by the Peace Conference, see ibid., pp. 905 and 916.
34. The statement circulated at this point has not been found.
35. The new article regarding the Danube which was recommended to the Council of Foreign Ministers by the Paris Peace Conference was article 32 in the Bulgarian Treaty, article 33 in the Hungarian Treaty, and article 34 in the Rumanian Treaty; for the text of Article 34, see vol. iv, p. 923.
36. Not printed, but see footnote 91, p. 686.