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 Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 28, 1946, 4 p.m.⁴⁹

New York, November 28, 1946, 4 p.m.

secret

Agenda

Mr. Bevin: I suggest that our agenda be as follows:

1. The report of the Deputies

2. The reports of the Economic Experts

3. The Danube

4. Reparations.

Report of the Deputies

M. Alphand: The Deputies met this morning in order to draw up in a clear form the agreements reached by the CFM on five questions (Withdrawal of troops, Continuance of the AMG, Appointment of Governor, Appointment of Provisional Council, and elections to the Constituent Assembly). The question of the special powers of the Governor during the provisional regime was not studied, nor were those concerning citizenship, the Free Port and the frontiers. The results of the discussions are contained in a document which has been circulated by the Secretariat.⁵⁰ Agreement was reached on most questions. However, there remain some sentences in brackets. There is a British reservation on the last paragraph of the paper on withdrawal of troops. No agreement was reached on the second sentence of the paper on provisional government. The Four Deputies agreed that the prerogatives of the Governor should be specified in the special instrument which might take the form of an instruction to the Governor.

Withdrawal of Troops

M. Molotov: It would be advisable to include the time limits in paragraph B.

M. Alphand: The Deputies have suggested that the Military experts meet tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. to discuss this matter.

M. Molotov: I am willing to postpone discussion of it until tomorrow.

Mr. Bevin: Do you agree to the inclusion of paragraph C?

The Ministers agreed to the inclusion of paragraph C and thereby adopted the three paragraphs. The Ministers also agreed to the paragraphs on the continuance of AMG pending assumption of office by the Governor and on the appointment of the Governor.

Appointment of a Provisional Council of Government

Mr. Bevin: There are two alternative drafts.⁵¹ I feel it would not be right to put all the powers in the hands of a selected and not elected group. This power should be reserved until after the elections. The Council would have to work with the Governor but the Governor would have the primary responsibility.

M. Molotov: I thought we had reached agreement on this subject and it seems to me that the French formula is in harmony with our agreement.

Mr. Bevin: I did not agree to this formula yesterday. I am waiting for the statutes on the interim period in order to see the entire picture. The trouble is that the Deputies have not yet reported on this interim period.

M. Couve de Murville: The Deputies recommended that the agreement would be supplemented by instructions to the Governor on the interim period. It would be a good idea to pass this over now until the Deputies have worked out instructions to the Governor.

Mr. Byrnes: It seems to me that it would be essential to include both the provisions now contained in brackets. By this language the Governor, after consulting with the Yugoslavs and Italians, would appoint a provisional Council which would assist him in the fulfillment of his duties pending the entry into force of the Constitution and the formation of the Assembly. Neither the Governor nor the Council have any powers or authorities other than we have given them. In the paper on the elections to the Constituent Assembly the powers of the Governor are set forth. The provisional Council is authorized to assist the Governor pending the entry into force of the regular Council. The Governor also has duties to perform with regard to the withdrawal of troops. I assume that other duties will be delegated to him, but we must include the last bracketed phrase since it is according to our agreement. This states that the Governor and the provisional Council shall exercise their functions in the manner laid down in the provisions of the Statute as and when these provisions prove to be applicable. This is a restriction on their functions but somehow we must give the Governor and the Council powers to do something more than control the withdrawal of troops and provide for the elections. We can say that if the provisions in the Statute are applicable they will be the controlling factor.

M. Molotov: The British draft gives extensive powers to the Governor. The French draft clearly defines the limits of these powers and his relationship to the Council. It states that the Statute should serve as a guide. Until the government is elected the relationship between the Governor and the Council should be based on the provisions of the Statute. We have made special provisions which give the Governor certain rights not included in the Statute, such as those concerning the withdrawal of troops, the holding of elections and the appointment of the Council. The statutes should serve as a guide for his remaining powers. It is not necesary to work out any special instructions for the Governor. Everything will depend on our decisions regarding withdrawal of troops, the elections, the appointment of the Council and other questions relative to the Statute.

Mr. Bevin: Could we not postpone this discussion until we see how the provisional and final statutes are worded? I may not wish to press my point after I have seen the entire picture.

M. Molotov: It is not proposed to set up a provisional statute.

Mr. Bevin: I may not have been clear. The Deputies were told to go through the Statute and see what provisions were relevant for the provisional period. I do not believe that the statutes cover this period. We all agree that when certain provisions of the Statute are relevant they should be the guiding principle, but it is vital to cover certain matters which are not provided for in the Statute. I think we could make up our minds quickly after we see what the Deputies produce for us in this respect.

M. Molotov: If we fail to indicate what the Deputies should do their task will be difficult.

Mr. Bevin: We did that yesterday and are now waiting for their report.

Mr. Byrnes: When we appoint a Governor, provide for the Council and also provide that the applicable statutes should be followed, we do not know what the Governor should do in unforseen cases. Take, for example, currency and customs questions which must be carried out until the permanent government is formed.

M. Molotov: I would like to think this matter over.

The Ministers agreed to postpone consideration of the two paragraphs in brackets pending a report from the Deputies.

Elections to the Constituent Assembly

The Ministers agreed to leave in the last sentence, changing the word “materially” to “technically”.

First Report of the Economic Experts CFM (46) (NY) 17⁵²

The Ministers approved this report without comment.

Second Report of the Economic Experts CFM (46) (NY) 20⁵³

Mr. Bevin: The first item in disagreement is a U.K. proposal to add paragraph 2A to Part 1 of Annex VII of the Italian Treaty and Annex V of the other treaties.

M. Molotov: I have no objection.

Mr. Byrnes: I have no objection provided the CFM will agree to the special clause relative to the United States which was approved by the Paris Conference.⁵⁴

Mr. Molotov: I do not object to this privilege accorded to the United States.

The Ministers agreed to the U.K. proposal.

Mr. Bevin: The next unagreed upon paragraph is contained on pages 4 and 5 of the Report relative to claims on Germany.

M. Molotov: I propose that Bulgaria be given the same treatment as Finland since Bulgaria is in a very difficult economic situation. I agree that the first three paragraphs of the text apply to all the countries and that paragraph 4 does not apply to Bulgaria.

Mr. Byrnes: Why should an exception be made to Bulgaria?

M. Molotov: Such an exception was accepted in the case of Finland. I am not suggesting anything new since there is no objection to the non-application of paragraph 4 to Finland. Germany pumped out of Bulgaria many resources without paying for them.

Mr. Byrnes: I cannot see the fairness of that proposal. The Allies have waived their claims on Germany. Rumania has waived its claims. Bulgaria was an enemy state and has claims against Germany. Why should Bulgaria be placed in a different class? The situation is quite different with respect to Finland. I do not see why a distinction should be made in the case of Bulgaria.

M. Molotov: Perhaps we could provide that Bulgaria should waive governmental claims but have the right to present clearing claims. This would be a compromise. The Government would suffer but private persons would not.

Mr. Bevin: What has happened to German assets in Bulgaria?

M. Molotov: There is a Potsdam decision on this question. I cannot give you any figures but Bulgaria will not receive anything.

Mr. Bevin: I am aware of the Potsdam decision but not how the matter stands out or whether it applies both ways.

Mr. Byrnes: Why should we make a distinction for Bulgarian nationals who might have sold armaments to Germany to use against the U.S. or U.S.S.R.? How can we say that Bulgarian nationals have claims against Germany and Rumanian nationals in the same situation shall not have the same rights? I don’t want to show favoritism between enemies. Furthermore, how are these claims going to be paid? When we get to the German settlement we will have a very difficult reparation problem and it will be difficult to pay claims to Bulgaria and not Rumania. If the Soviet Union agrees to pay such claims out of their zone it would help our argument. But we are going to have trouble enough over reparations and I think we had better leave out of the picture claims of enemy states.

M. Molotov: I suggest we postpone consideration of this question.

Mr. Bevin: Our next item is insurance.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation does not object to the new British wording in line 8, paragraph 2 of Article 68. With respect to paragraph 5, the Soviet Union suggests that the time limit be set at 18 months instead of three years. The Soviet Delegation agrees to the rest of this paragraph.

The Ministers agreed to the two paragraphs in question with the aforementioned Soviet amendment.

Mr. Bevin: The next open item concerns Petroleum.

M. Molotov: I propose that the British text read as follows:

“If necessary the Rumanian Government shall revoke legislation enacted since 1st September 1939 in so far as it discriminates against the rights of United Nations nationals.”

Mr. Bevin: Those words will not restore the existing rights.

M. Molotov: There is a clear indication of the restoration of rights in Article 24 of the Rumanian Treaty.

The Ministers agreed to the new wording suggested by M. Molotov.

Fair Prices

M. Molotov: I have one point not covered by the Economic Experts, the Recommendations of the Conference which were adopted by a simple majority not by ⅔—Article 30 bis which was not in the draft treaty regarding fair prices.⁵⁵ I move that we delete it.

Mr. Bevin: I received representations on this matter only today. At the moment the oil companies are just being put out of business. The price paid is so low that it cannot support the standard of life of the workers. The companies are being slowly driven to death. It is a form of discrimination. Forty-two percent of their production is going to reparations and all that oil is being paid for by the Rumanian Government well below the cost price. The companies are being run into debt. This has nothing to do with the Rumanian-Soviet arrangements but if the Rumanians must buy oil for reparations it should not be done in this way. If they were going to nationalize and pay proper compensation, that would be one thing, but this is almost indefensible. The companies should receive the cost price.

M. Molotov: This question was not raised prior to the Conference or mentioned in the draft treaty. We can’t admit a situation where there are double prices—some for reparations, some for trade. Questions of this sort should be settled by direct negotiations with the Rumanian Government. It is well known that Rumanian oil never sold at world prices. This matter should not be in the Treaty but be settled between the Rumanian Government and the British Government.

Mr. Byrnes: I think it should be made clear that we don’t seek by this section to limit the reparations paid to the Soviet Government by Rumania. We don’t mean to do that. The way I understand it is that the Rumanian Government requires the American oil companies there to sell to the government corporation the oil produced and then they don’t pay a price based on the market price in that area. I don’t think that “the world condition” is quite the right phrase to use as the price throughout the world is not relevant to the area where Rumania is located. It is all right for the government to purchase oil from our nationals for reparations but they should pay the fair market price prevalent in the area. We might provide that in suitable language. That would not deprive the Soviet Government but it would save these oil companies from bankruptcy. What objection can there be to saying that the Rumanian Government should pay the fair market price in the Mediterranean area, or if that was not satisfactory let our representatives on the Economic Committee choose fair prices in several areas near Rumania and draw an average and then say let the Rumanian Government pay a fair market price based on the average for these areas.

M. Molotov: I suggest that we exclude this question from the Treaty entirely. It was not in the draft and I don’t think we can settle it in the course of discussions of the Peace Treaty as it will be settled by special experts.

Mr. Byrnes: It is not in the Treaty but it was a recommendation of the Conference by a vote of 13 to 6 which lacks only 1 of being a ⅔ majority. I hope some language can be worked out that will be fair to all parties.

Mr. Bevin: I have been instructed that something be done about this. It would be very difficult to leave it out of the Treaty. I understand that the question has been discussed with the Rumanian Government but that no settlement can be reached.

M. Molotov: The Rumanian Government is not restricted on the prices it can pay to the oil companies. The Rumanian Government is only restricted on the oil delivered as reparations. These are two different questions but it will be wrong to establish certain prices for Rumanian oil firms and different prices for United Kingdom and United States firms.

Mr. Bevin: Shall we pass on? The report is adopted—the point concerning Bulgaria has been withdrawn—the discussion on the report is finished.

M. Molotov: I withdrew my Bulgarian amendment. I recommend you withdraw yours.

Mr. Bevin: I only received instructions this morning to press the point.

M. Molotov: I have a pocket full of instructions.

Third Report of the Committee of Economic Experts

Mr. Bevin: We’ll pass on then to document CFM (46) (NY)29, Economic and Financial Provisions Relating to Ceded Territories.⁵⁶ The first item is the transfer of state and para-statal property.⁵⁷ It is disagreed. Only the words in brackets are in disagreement. Do we agree to remove the brackets?

M. Molotov: No objection.

Mr. Bevin: The brackets are withdrawn. We will turn to Item 4, Amendment Regarding Works of Art, Etc. Removed from Ceded Territory.⁵⁸

M. Molotov: You’ll have a pocket full of brackets.

Mr. Bevin: The first words in brackets are disagreed. The French Delegation opposes it.

M. Couve de Murville: I still consider the paragraph too hard. I would prefer another draft but if the other three delegations insist we withdraw our reservations.

Mr. Bevin: Then the objections are withdrawn and it stands. We will pass on to Item 3, Public Debt, Paragraph 3. More brackets.

M. Molotov: We send the brackets into your pocket.

Mr. Bevin: All four of the brackets are withdrawn and it stands. The next amendment is to Item 7, Amendment Regarding Italian Pension Obligations.⁵⁹ The United States Representative reserves his opinion regarding the inclusion of the bracketed words.

Mr. Byrnes: I will be as generous as the Soviet Delegate. I give you some brackets.

Mr. Bevin: Then it stands. Item 8, Amendment Regarding Certain Privately Owned Concessionary Companies.⁶⁰ This case was discussed yesterday. The question of reparations is involved. Had we better reserve this until we clear up reservations [reparations?]. That $55,000,000 we were arguing the other day—I understand that deals with the proposal that this be taken over by the Yugoslavs in connection with the reparations discussed the other day and I suggest that we leave it until we discuss the whole question of reparations.

M. Molotov: Agreed.

Mr. Bevin: Item 9, Italian Property in Ceded Territory.⁶¹ The French and U.S. Delegations reserve their positions on this. The Soviet Union and U.K. support it.

Mr. Byrnes: The United States reserved its position to see if the words “after the date of the armistice” could be inserted as provided in the next paragraph, paragraph 14. Also, if the words “during the war” could be replaced by “after the date of the armistice”—”prior to September 3, 1943”. In the early days of the war there was probably a lot of property shifted which it would be difficult to show but if the clause is written as in the next paragraph I am willing to go along.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation supports Mr. Byrnes.

M. Couve de Murville: Agreed.

Mr. Bevin: Very well. Let it be amended accordingly. Item Subparagraph G of Paragraph 5, Article 68 [69] is the next point of disagreement.⁶²

M. Molotov: I have a proposal to make. I will have my colleague Mr. Pavlov read it:

“With the exception of the assets indicated in Article 64, Part A, paragraph 2(b) and Part D, paragraph 1, property of natural persons residing in ceded territories or in the Free Territory of Trieste who do not opt for Italian nationality under this Treaty, and property of corporations or associations having siège social in ceded territories or in the Free Territory of Trieste, provided that such corporations or associations are not owned or controlled by persons in Italy. In the cases provided under Article 64, Part A, paragraph 2(b), and Part D, paragraph 1, the question of compensation will be dealt with under Article 64, Part E.”

The first point in this proposal is supported by the French Delegation. Our proposal consists of two additions which we make at the beginning and end of this paragraph while leaving the middle as it appears in the draft. Our third point, the addition to Article 59, paragraph 5, subparagraph 5, was presented after we had reached agreement on reparations from Italy. Unless we make the amendments at the beginning and end of the subparagraph the decision regarding reparations for the Soviet Union will be contradicted. We have one more argument, then this is the last amendment. We request that it be accepted.

Mr. Byrnes: I must confess I don’t see the change. You say you changed the first and last parts of subparagraph G.

M. Molotov: Yes, there were words lacking in the original. The question of compensation will be dealt with under Article 64, Part E. I ask you to recall that Article 64, which has been agreed to, deals with reparations to be paid to the Soviet Union by Italy. It contains subparagraph B which indicates one of the sources for reparations is to be Italian assets in Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary except those covered in Article 69. Considering the existence of this agreed article, we shall worsen the language of the agreed paragraph B unless we keep unchanged paragraph G of Article 64. That is the only reason why we suggest our amendments to the first and last paragraphs of Article 64.

Mr. Byrnes: There is one thing I must ask about. What will be the effect of that proposal on a person in the Free Territory who has interests in property in an insurance company? What would be the effect on an individual not in the ceded territory but in Trieste? There are individuals in Trieste who own controlling interests in companies which have subsidiaries in Rumania. Would that property be taken over as assets in computing reparations?

M. Molotov: There may be those who will be affected slightly but the Italian Government can compensate them.

Mr. Byrnes: You would not consider elimination of the Free Territory and confine this to ceded territories. It wouldn’t affect reparations. The difference would come from current production.

M. Molotov: When we agreed on paragraph B for reparations there were no limitations and there should be none.

Mr. Bevin: Does it make any difference to you if reparations come out of current production. I suppose we are all agreed that we want to make the Free Territory as viable as possible. We don’t want to have a great drain on subsidies from our side.

M. Molotov: We think it undesirable to shake Article 64 on reparations. We have no more amendments to the economic articles.

Mr. Bevin: I am glad to hear that.

M. Molotov: We gave you a lot of brackets.

Mr. Bevin: It’s Thanksgiving Day and I thank you.

Mr. Byrnes: I very reluctantly agree to the Free Territory being included. I wish the Soviet Union could confine itself to the ceded territories but I want to agree and, if there is no other way, I agree but very reluctantly.

M. Molotov: I thank the U.S. Delegation.

Mr. Byrnes: We must provide some way for the Italians to reimburse the people in the Free Territory.

M. Molotov: This is indicated in the second part of our amendment, “In the cases provided under Article 64, Part A, paragraph 2B and Part D, paragraph 1 the question of compensation will be dealt with under Article 64, Part E.”

Mr. Byrnes: All right.

M. Couve de Murville: What is the exact text, what was read by M. Molotov?

M. Molotov: Yes, CFM(46) (NY)29, paragraph [item] 18.

M. Couve de Murville: I agree.

Mr. Bevin: Then it’s agreed.

The Danube

M. Molotov: I have a proposal to make. Mr. Byrnes said he was interested in paragraph 1 of the proposals regarding the Danube. I have a proposal in relation to it. In the first place, it takes into account the June 29th amendment proposed by M. Bidault⁶³ and includes the Soviet amendments. “Navigation on the River Danube shall be free and open to citizens, merchant vessels and goods of all states on a basis of equality in regard to port and navigation charges and conditions of commercial shipping within the limits of customary commercial relations.”

Mr. Byrnes: Would it then continue as the language of the article now reads, “to the nationals, etc.”

M.Molotov: Yes.

Mr. Byrnes: I agree. I suppose we can let the Deputies look at it for drafting.

Mr. Bevin: What about the second paragraph we discussed yesterday?

M. Molotov: Yesterday it met with no appreciation somehow and I am prepared to withdraw it.

Mr. Bevin: My Government is very concerned about this conference and this declaration.

M. Molotov: We don’t think it is necessary to incorporate these matters in the Treaty but keep them as decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Bevin: You mean both. You don’t propose to put this paragraph you just read in the Treaty?

M. Molotov: No. Both of them.

Mr. Bevin: We have the multilateral treaties which are now in operation which cover Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Austria and which Belgium, Greece and other powers were a party to. These multilateral treaties were made with two or three states which were at war with us. Now the Treaty will say nothing about these multilateral treaties being in force. That places me in a difficult position.

M. Molotov: It would not be convenient to include any articles binding upon both the enemy states and the Allies. Therefore, it is proper not to include these articles in the Treaty but as decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers. This would be authoritative enough for the nations Bevin referred to.

Mr. Byrnes: When you first made the proposal, Mr. Molotov, I agreed because I thonght you intended it to go in the Treaty. It is important that this principle of paragraph 1 be in the Treaty. Rumania was, prior to the war, one of the states responsible for difficulties of navigation on the Danube. Now it is important that this provision be in the Treaty which Rumania signs. As for the United States, I would agree to go along to have the Conference proposal in a separate statement. That offers a solution. Let’s agree on that. Put no. 1 as drafted by you in the Treaty, then have the Conference separate.

M. Molotov: Let me reflect.

Mr. Bevin: Will you reflect on giving Greece a place in this Conference.

M. Molotov: This would be against the recommendation of the Conference which refers only to the Danubian States.

Mr. Bevin: To meet Mr. Molotov I have given way on a lot of articles which were recommendations by the Conference. In fact, I have accepted some of the minority views.

M. Molotov: I should not like to violate the recommendations of the Conference. I am very sinful on this.

Mr. Bevin: But the article does not exclude this possibility. It doesn’t limit the states to the riparian states. The Ukraine wasn’t mentioned. You can put that in. You agree to Greece and I’ll agree to the Ukraine and neither of them are Danubian States.

M. Molotov: It is enough to look at the map to see that the Ukraine is a Danubian State. It would be necessary to have the Council of Foreign Ministers recognize Greece as a Danubian State, otherwise no one would be convinced. The Moldavian Republic, not shown on the map, is a Danubian State.

Mr. Bevin: Have you been allowing the Ukraine to annex territory?

M. Molotov: The Ukraine has found herself on the Danube.

Mr. Bevin: I do want to ask Greece. She has important shipping interests on the Danube and was a party to the old Danubian Convention.

M. Molotov: It is not possible to do this.

Mr. Bevin: I think it was agreed in Paris when we dealt with the multilateral treaties that they were just suspended and came back when the peace was signed. Now we’ll have a conference to create a new regime on the Danube but the old agreements will be in effect and Greece is a party to them. It would be a good thing to allow them to come in. In the 6th meeting of the Legal and Drafting Committee⁶⁴ this question of the multilateral treaties was agreed upon unanimously. Therefore, I ask that it be reflected on.

M. Molotov: I think this is an unjustified claim because (a) Greece is no longer a Danubian country, (b) the Conference thought it essential to single out the question of the Danube and paragraph 2 of the Conference recommendations enumerates the states and clearly mentions that apart from the Big Four the Danubian countries are to be participants. Greece was not mentioned and she voted for the paragraph. There is no reason to raise the question now.

Mr. Bevin: I ask Mr. Molotov to reflect on the inclusion of Greece. Probably we can clear the whole thing up tomorrow.

M. Molotov: I can’t agree on Greece.

M. Couve de Murville: What does the Soviet Delegate understand to be the meaning of “within the limits of usual commercial relations”?

M. Molotov: There are certain commercial arrangements which establish tariff charges, etc., when some were given favored treatment in one respect and not in another and various details of that sort. Some countries are more interested in one condition and some in another and they combine the aspects most advantageous to them.

Mr. Bevin: Could the Deputies define that more clearly? We will pass on now to an easy subject, reparations.

Mr. Byrnes: There is a second part of the ritual of Thanksgiving Day besides giving thanks and that is eating a piece of turkey. I have a turkey waiting for me.

Mr. Bevin: That sounds like a motion for adjournment. Shall we meet tomorrow? The Deputies can continue their work and draw up a list of the remaining outstanding points. The Deputies will meet at 11:00 and the Ministers at 4:00.

(Agreed)

49. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
50. The document under reference is included as the annex (p. 1322) to the Record of Decisions of the 122nd Meeting of the Deputies, November 28, 11 a.m.
51. The article on “Appointment of a Provisional Council of Government” which was referred by the Deputies to the Council of Foreign Ministers as part of the Annex to the Record of Decisions of the 122nd Meeting of the Deputies, November 28, supra, incorporated language from a British proposal and a French proposal. The text of the British proposal is included in footnote 31, p. 1306. The text of the French proposal is included in footnote 48, p. 1324.
52. Ante, p. 1196.
53. Ante, p. 1227.
54. The clause referred to here by the Secretary is the addition to Annex 7 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy which was included in the Record of Recommendations of the Paris Conference, vol. iv, p. 914. The clause had to do with the inapplicability of Annex 7 as between the United States and Italy.
55. The reference here is to article 30 bis of the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, a new article which was included in the Recommendations of the Peace Conference on the Rumanian Treaty; for the text, see vol. iv, p. 926.
56. Not printed; all the amendments and additions to Annex III of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy agreed upon by the Committee of Economic Experts and included in their Third Report were subsequently incorporated in document CFM (46) (NY)30, November 26, 1946, p. 1296.
57. Paragraph 1 of document CFM(46) (NY)30, November 26, p. 1297.
58. Paragraph 1C of document CFM(46) (NY)30, November 26, ibid.
59. Paragraph 4A of document CFM(46) (NY)30, November 26, p. 1298.
60. Fourth (bracketed) sub-paragraph of paragraph 5 of document CFM(46) (NY)30, November 26, p. 1299.
61. Third sub-paragraph of paragraph 5 of document CFM(46) (NY)30, November 26, p. 1299.

62. Under item 18 of CFM (46) (NY)29, November 26, not printed, the Committee of Economic Experts reported that it had been unable to reach agreement on sub-paragraph (g) of article 69, paragraph 5, of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy as proposed by the United States Delegation and supported by the United Kingdom Delegation. That proposal read as follows:

    “(g) Property of natural persons residing in ceded territories or in the Free Territory of Trieste who do not opt for Italian nationality under this Treaty, and property of corporations or associations having siège social in ceded territories or in the Free Territory of Trieste, provided that such corporations or associations are not owned or controlled by persons in Italy.”

    The Economic Experts further reported that the French and Soviet Delegations were opposed to inclusion of this provision unless it was amended to read according to text read at this Council meeting by Pavlov.

63. The French amendment under reference here was circulated to the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris as document CFM (46) 172, June 29, 1946, and read as follows: “on a footing of equality as regards commercial shipping tariffs and conditions.” (CFM Files, Lot M–88, Box 2061, CFM Documents)
64. i.e., of the Paris Peace Conference.