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

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

United States Delegation Minutes, Council of Foreign Ministers, Third Session, Twelfth Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 30, 1946, 4 p.m.⁸⁹

New York, November 30, 1946, 4 p.m.

secret
USDEL(CFM) (46) (NY) 12th Meeting

Report of the Deputies on Provisional Regime⁹⁰

Mr. Gusev: The Deputies discussed the agreed upon provisions of the Permanent Statute in order to see which ones were applicable to the Provisional Regime. As a result of their studies they agreed that the following paragraphs applied: Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5; Articles 16 bis, Section II, paragraphs 1, 5, 8 bis, B 3(a), 10(a) and (b); the decision of the C.F.M. regarding the withdrawal of troops in the elections; the retention of the Inter-Allied Military Control, the appointment of the Governor and the section pertaining to the appointment of the Provisional Council. Section III, paragraph 2 (CFM (NY) (46)28) shall be applied without prejudice to the foregoing arrangements agreed by the CFM as to the number of troops permitted in the area and the condition of their withdrawal which should govern the presence of troops in the area during the Provisional Regime. Article II shall be applicable upon the entry into force of the Treaty. Paragraph III shall be applied in connection with the decision of the CFM regarding the elections. Paragraph 6 shall not apply.

The Deputies did not reach agreement on the following point: The US, UK, and French Deputies considered that paragraphs 8(a), (b) and (c) could only be applied in full. The US, UK and French Deputies considered that paragraphs 8 bis, 1(a), 2, 3(b), (c) and 9 could not be applied. The Soviet Delegate considered that they could.

In the course of the discussion it came to light that the US, UK and French Delegates believed no decision could be reached on the applicability of the above mentioned paragraphs until the Ministers adopted a decision regarding the powers of the Provisional Council. The Soviet Delegate considered that these paragraphs could be applied during the interim period. The Deputies were unable to come to agreement on the applicability of these paragraphs because it became clear that their understanding of the functions of the Provisional Council widely differed. The main question was whether the Council should have executive or advisory functions subject to the orders of the Governor. The Deputies requested me to express the hope that the Ministers might consider this question.

Mr. Molotov: I suggest we return to the point where we left off in the CFM concerning the appointment of the Provisional Governor of Trieste. We agreed on November 28th to the first part of a document on this subject but did not reach agreement on the second part.⁹¹ We must agree on this second part in order to give our Deputies clear-cut instructions. What are the relations between the Governor and the Council? If we can reach agreement on this point it will be easy to agree on the remaining points in the draft instructions drawn up by the French. The Soviet Delegation considers that the second sentence in this document is correctly drafted because it conforms to our agreement. This sentence reads: “The Governor and the Provisional Council of Government will exercise their functions in the manner provided for by the provisions of the Statute to the extent to which these provisions prove to be applicable.” The Soviet Delegation proposes that we accept this part of the French draft which clearly defines the relation between the Governor and Provisional Council.

Mr. Bevin: I can not accept the French wording because it puts the Provisional Government in the position of an elected government. I think the Governor should have full power during the Provisional Regime and that he should act in consultation with the Council. The Governor can not be limited in his functions. He must be able to keep order and take any other necessary measures.

M. Couve de Murville: The U.K. objections may be due in a fact that we have not clearly explained what we had in mind. It is difficult to make precise the responsibilities and powers of the various authorities during the provisional period, since the situation will alter from time to time considerably. The ideal situation, of course, would be to apply to [the] Permanent Statute during the provisional period but this is of course impossible. Therefore, we should say that the Permanent Statute should apply if and when possible and in the last resort the Governor should be the judge whether it is possible or not. If this general principle is acceptable, we might state our idea more precisely in instructions to the Governor regarding his activities. This would show him the spirit of what we and the Security Council thought his competence should be. There should be good cooperation between the Governor and the Council and it would be a good thing in the eyes of the local public officials if the Governor were supported by the Council which would represent the various sectors of opinion in the Territory. With this in mind the French Deputies this morning indicated various principles which should prevail. These principles are as follows; the Provisional Council, appointed by the Governor, shall participate together with the Governor in the installation of the authorities, services and institutions during the interim period, shall cooperate in the preparation of the elections, and shall give advice to the Governor regarding the suspension or repeal of existing laws and regulations which the Governor shall enact with a view to amending or completing the legislative measures in force in the Territory.

Mr. Byrnes: Have the draft instructions to the Governor been considered by the Deputies?

M. Couve de Murville: No. There was not time enough and secondly the Deputies needed a decision from the CFM on the powers of the Council.

Mr. Bevin: The real issue is—who’s to be in charge, the Governor or the Council? My view is that the Governor should be in charge in consultation with the Council. The French Delegate is saying the same thing, but the main issue is the question whether everything is to be handed over to the Council or is the Governor to be the trustee. During the interim regime when there is no elected government, the Governor, who is the representative of the Security Council, should have all responsibilities. We have done that in connection with the organizing of the elections. If we could agree that he is to carry on his duties in consultation with the Council, I could accept that theory.

Mr. Byrnes: I agree with the views expressed by Mr. Bevin. For this four or five months provisional period, we must rely on the individual selected by us as members of the Security Council. If a provision of the Permanent Statute is applicable, he should be controlled by it, but where there is no relevant provision we must give our representative general authority to enable him successfully to perform his duties. It is difficult to draft here at this time a Statute to cover all the duties of the Provisional Governor, but I think it is important for us to decide whether the Governor has powers to take on measures and act in an executive or administrative manner when there is no applicable provision. We have given the Governor powers to select the members of the Council. Has the Governor powers to remove a member for malfeasance in office. We should state “the Governor shall have the right to make the changes in the composition of the Provisional Council of Government whenever he deems it necessary”. If that statement is inserted and if the words “in the opinion of the Governor” are inserted in the last sentence of the French proposal, and if some general authority could be given to the Governor to act when there were no relevant provisions in the Statute, I think that this would be the simplest disposition of the French proposal. This would presuppose that we have trust in the man we have selected for Governor and that he will discharge those duties in the manner the Security Council wishes him to do.

Mr. Molotov: I am surprised that we come back to questions which we have already decided. We singled out for our special examination questions regarding the appointment of the Provisional Council, the question of troops and the date for the elections. All these questions were decided by us on the basis of special decisions and not on the basis of the Permanent Statute. No one of us was deprived of the right to mention certain questions of substance which should be resolved in a manner different from that in which they were resolved in the Permanent Statute. If we are now to raise the question as to how the Provisional Council is to function, that is, not as provided for in the Permanent Statute but in a different manner, then the question arises what was the use of our discussing all the above mentioned questions. The Soviet Delegation does not agree that the Provisional Council should be an advisory body. It should be in the same position as the Permanent Council. The Permanent Statute may be amplified by certain additional provisions to cover matters which are not covered in the Permanent Statute. We have granted the Governor the right to appoint a Provisional Council, to control the troops and to hold elections. I agree with Mr. Byrnes that the Governor should be able to make changes in the Council. But with regard to the remainder we should adhere to this standard of relation between the Governor and the Council which are defined in the Permanent Statute.

Mr. Bevin: Do you agree to Mr. Byrnes’ second proposal?

Mr. Byrnes: I understood that the French representative wished to amend the draft to include the words “in the opinion of the Governor”.

M. Couve de Murville: I did not actually propose an amendment but what I said was that in our mind the Governor should be the judge as to which provisions were applicable. Therefore, I do not object to Mr. Byrnes’ amendment. I thought that we should include these words in order that there be no future misunderstanding. If there is no objection I would agree to the French proposal with the amendment I have offered to which the Soviet and French Delegations have agreed.

Mr. Bevin: I cannot accept it.

Mr. Byrnes: When I requested a general clause I had in mind that some things might arise which we had not anticipated. For example, the Governor should be empowered to appear before the Budget Committee of UN, to borrow money necessary to run the Provisional Government. It is only the General Assembly that can provide the money. If the General Assembly adjourns in two weeks we are going to find it difficult to get a Governor when he knows that he cannot be paid.

Mr. Molotov: I suggest that we accept the French text with Mr. Byrnes’ first amendment to the effect the Governor should have the right to make changes in the Provisional Council. I suggest that the Deputies of the economic experts exchange views on the financial question.

Mr. Bevin: Suppose during the Provisional Regime there is a claim that a particular clause in the Statute should or should not apply and suppose there is a difference between the Council and the Governor. Who is to decide? Is it to become a cause of conflict?

Mr. Molotov: There is not much chance of this happening but should such a conflict arise the Security Council would have to settle the matter. Furthermore, under the Permanent Statute the Governor has the right to act at his own discretion during an extraordinary situation. In any case the Governor will have enough rights during the interim period if he is guided by the decisions we have adopted. We might refer the financial questions to the Deputies.

Mr. Byrnes: I agree. The Deputies might consider the question of collecting taxes and also budgetary matters. May I read the French text as it now stands:

“On his assumption to office in the Free Territory of Trieste, the Governor shall be empowered to select from among persons domiciled in the Free Territory and after consultation with the Governors [Governments] of Yugoslavia and Italy a Provisional Council of Government. The Governor shall have the right to make changes in the composition of the Provisional Council of Government when he deems it necessary. The Governor and the Provisional Council of Government shall exercise their function in the manner laid down in the provision of the Statute as and when these provisions prove to be applicable.” I think it should be “Permanent Statute”. Is there any objection to this text?

Mr. Bevin: I must reserve my position until I see what the directive is to the Governor.

Mr. Molotov: I agree.

Mr. Bevin: Is the directive to go to the Deputies?

M. Couve de Murville: I think that it would prove advantageous to have it examined in its first reading by the Deputies.

Mr. Molotov: If it is possible to dispense with additional instructions so much the better.

Mr. Bevin: I don’t think this will work out satisfactory. I submitted a paper⁹² which I thought was very important and I must say that in my opinion the CFM has totally ignored it. Every time I try to get it discussed it is referred to the Deputies. As far as I know they have not considered it. I do not understand how this paper can be pushed aside. If the provisions in it are placed in the directive, I would be quite agreeable but I must see this directive before I approve the present proposal. I am quite willing for the Deputies to study the French directive but I must see the results before I make up my mind. There is a clause which I think is absolutely necessary, namely, the clause to the effect that the Governor should have the authority to organize and conduct the Provisional Government in the name of the Security Council. He should have the right to take executive action and to issue decrees during the Provisional Regime. This is very important from the legal point of view. I ask that the Government which I represent be treated fairly and that its papers be considered. I cannot get a reply to the question set forth in my paper and I find that most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Molotov: I consider that we took into account Mr. Bevin’s document when we examined the issues pertaining to the Provisional Regime. We did not ignore it. Certain provisions in the document were in contradiction to questions we had decided and therefore the Deputies could not accept them. Other questions can be taken up when the French proposal is discussed.

Mr. Bevin: Are the French, US and UK documents going to the Deputies in order that they be converted into a directive instead of an interim instrument?

Mr. Byrnes: It was my understanding that these papers had been referred to the Deputies.

Mr. Molotov: With a reservation that the Deputies will not accept points which go against what we have already decided.

Mr. Byrnes: That is understood.

Mr. Bevin: As Mr. Gusev stated, the U.K. Delegate reserved his position on paragraph 2 as it relates to paragraph 12 of the document of August 29th.⁹³ I do not wish to discuss this question now but I believe that the Deputies should consider it again when they discuss the directive. This matter deals with the right of the Provisional Governor to call upon the Commander of the Allied contingents for military support.

Mr. Byrnes: Would it not be covered by the proposal concerning the withdrawal of troops which states that these troops would be placed at the disposal of the Governor for a period of ninety days.

Mr. Bevin: I just mentioned this as a matter of caution.

Mr. Byrnes: Unless there is some objection, I propose that the Deputies be directed to consider the proposal in connection with the other items submitted to them.

Mr. Molotov: No objection.

Settlement of Economic Disputes

Mr. Byrnes: Article 72 (Settlement of Economic Disputes) differs somewhat from the Articles on this subject in the other Treaties. Article 72 was approved by the Paris Conference by 16 votes to 6.⁹⁴

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation finds it possible to depart from its former position and would like to submit an amendment. We propose to accept the original U.S. amendment made at the Paris Council of Foreign Ministers to the effect that the arbiter should be named by the Secretary General of the United Nations. We suggest that Article 72 be adopted in the language originally suggested by the Soviet Delegation as amended by the American Delegation.⁹⁵

Mr. Bevin: Do all the other clauses stand except for this one change?

Mr. Molotov: We propose to replace the text of this Article, as contained in the Paris Recommendation, by the text which is contained in the original draft treaty proposed by the Soviet Delegation subject to the amendment proposed by the American Delegation. We would then bring the text into line with paragraphs b, c, d, e, f, g of Conference Recommendations. This work could be entrusted to the economic experts. We propose to keep the Soviet language of Article 72 which does not mention mixed arbitral tribunals but which refers to a Conciliation Commission. It does not contain reference to legal proceedings. It is preferable to avoid the use of these terms and that is why we suggest that we accept this Article subject to the American amendment.

Mr. Byrnes: Do you intend to eliminate the words “Annexes VI, VII, VIII” which are included in the US-UK proposal?

Mr. Molotov: The reference will be kept in.

Mr. Byrnes: Then you substitute the Secretary General for the President of the International Court?

Mr. Molotov: Yes.

Mr. Byrnes: I would be willing to agree to the proposal.

M. Couve de Murville: I am informed there is also the question of Annex III.

Mr. Byrnes: We might add Annex III to Mr. Molotov’s proposal.

Mr. Molotov: The Economic Committee should be instructed to look into this matter.

Mr. Bevin: I agree to the proposal.

Mr. Byrnes: Does Mr. Molotov propose to include in the Roumanian Treaty the language agreed upon for the Italian Treaty.

Mr. Molotov: Yes.

Mr. Byrnes: Is there any objection to applying this language for all the Treaties? (No objections).

Enemy Assets in Territory of the Allied and Associated Powers

Mr. Molotov: I have been advised that with the exception of the Italian Treaty there are no such detailed paragraphs. I am also told that there is no need to have such paragraphs in the other Treaties. The Conference did not accept them.

Mr. Bevin: Would it not be better to be consistent?

Mr. Molotov: The Conference did not make such a recommendation.

Mr. Bevin: We should not deprive them of b, c, and d.

Mr. Molotov: Let us ask them. If they insist, we will accept the paragraphs.

Mr. Byrnes: We are not insisting on it. Shall we proceed to the next point. That is Article 24 of the Bulgarian Treaty.⁹⁶

Mr. Molotov: I propose that we apply the same procedure with regard to Bulgaria as was applied with regard to Finland and the same procedure with regard to Hungary as was applied to Roumania.

Mr. Byrnes: The U.S. Delegation can agree to applying the same language to Hungary as to Roumania. It does not agree to applying the same language to Bulgaria as to Finland but insists that the same language should be included in the Bulgarian Treaty as was included in the Italian and Roumanian Treaties.

Mr. Molotov: I do not understand why we have to do that in view of the Finnish precedent.

Mr. Byrnes: The U.S. was not a party to the Finnish agreement but we were a party to the Conference and there was a two-thirds vote on this proposal.

Mr. Molotov: Let us consider the question of Hungary as settled but give us time to reflect over Bulgaria.

Return of Jewish Property⁹⁷

Mr. Molotov: We are prepared to accept this Article subject to amending the words “full compensation” by the word “compensation”.

Mr. Bevin: Did you agree to “fair compensation”?

Mr. Molotov: Yes. I also propose that we exclude the clause which refers to the International Refugee Organization. Furthermore, we consider that property which remains ownerless, heirless, or unclaimed should be owned by the state in accordance with the laws thereof.

Mr. Byrnes: I am willing to agree to omit reference to the International Refugee Organization and to rephrase this sentence to read “transfer to any organization designated by the Economic and Social Council”.

Mr. Molotov: This will be of no advantage to the Council.

Mr. Byrnes: We believe that this proposal which received a two-thirds vote at the Conference should remain in the Treaty. It simply provides that where people were killed and where their property is unclaimed such property should be used for the purposes of relief.

Mr. Molotov: I do not believe that there is any real need for this Article in the Treaty but I am prepared to keep it in the Treaty in so far as that section is concerned which was agreed to by the Four of us.

Mr. Byrnes: I request that the Article be passed over. The Soviet Delegation knows that all the Jewish people are interested in this Article. Perhaps he would see them and hear their point of view.

Mr. Molotov: The Jewish people do not take offense at the Soviet Union.

Mr. Bevin: I wonder if there would be any difficulty provided this property were returned to the International Refugee Organization or whether the property should be returned to a Rehabilitation Commission consisting of Jews and representatives of the Roumanian Government.

Mr. Molotov: If you bring up the second part of this Article for discussion, we propose to bring up the first part because we see no need for the Article under present conditions in Roumania.

Mr. Byrnes: Would you consider a local organization instead of an organization designated by the Economic and Social Council?

Mr. Molotov: We should not create such organizations. Only difficulties would result in so doing.

Mr. Byrnes: I proposed an organization which was already in existence. I suggest we pass over this Article.

Railway Traffic, Article 28 bis, Bulgarian Treaty and 29 bis Hungarian Treaty⁹⁸

These articles were adopted.

Fair Prices for Reparation Deliveries⁹⁹

No decision was taken by the Ministers on this question.

Danube–Sava–Adriatica Railway¹

M. Couve de Murville: We have accepted the text for the Italian Treaty pursuant to the report of the Economic Committee. We might accept the same text in the case of Hungary.

Mr. Molotov: No objection.

Mr. Byrnes: No objection.

Mr. Bevin: No objection.

Shipping, Roumanian Treaty²

Mr. Bevin: I reserve my position on this Article until we have discussed compensation.

Interpretation of Treaties

Mr. Byrnes: The Conference Recommendation—the adoption of Article 76 of the Italian Treaty by 15 votes to 6.

Mr. Molotov: I would like to give more thought to this Article.

Motor Torpedo Boats³

Mr. Molotov: We are not afraid of motor torpedo boats in the hands of these Powers and they threaten nobody but us.

Mr. Bevin: A similar clause has been agreed to for the Italian Treaty.

Mr. Byrnes: The Conference Recommended the inclusion of similar clauses in the other Treaties by 14 to 6.

Mr. Molotov: I think that Hungary, for example, should be allowed to keep some motor torpedo boats.

Mr. Bevin: I think we might end up tonight by agreeing on this Article. It was adopted by a two-third’s majority.

Mr. Molotov: I am told that the Bulgarians have only 7 motor torpedo boats. Perhaps we could allow them to have 6. Two of my colleagues might make a concession in this respect because I alone thus far have been making concessions.

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Molotov forgets all the concessions we made in Paris and also the concessions on the concessions.

Mr. Molotov: I would like to reflect on this matter.

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

89. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
90. See the Record of Decisions of the 124th Meeting of the Deputies, November 30, 1946, supra, wherein the documents under reference in this Report are identified.
91. The document under consideration at this point was the Annex (p. 1322) to the Record of Decisions of the 122nd Meeting of Deputies, November 28, 1946.
92. CFM(46) (NY)23, November 22, 1946, p. 1252.
93. CFM (46)258, August 29, 1946, not printed, but the paragraph under reference is summarized in item Ib of the Record of Decisions of the 124th Meeting of the Deputies, November 30, p. 1355.
94. As included in the Recommendations of the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, article 72 is printed in vol. iv, p. 905.
95. The reference here is to article 72 as included in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy referred to the Peace Conference by the Council of Foreign Ministers; see vol. iv, pp. 34–35.
96. Vol. iv, p. 930. Also under consideration at this point was article 25 in the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary as recommended by the Peace Conference, ibid., p. 943.
97. Under consideration at this point were articles 24 bis of the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania and 23 bis of the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary, as recommended by the Peace Conference, ibid., pp. 925 and 942, respectively.
98. Vol. iv, pp. 932 and 945, respectively.
99. Under reference here is article 30 bis of the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, as recommended by the Peace Conference, ibid., p. 926.
1. Article 23, paragraph 9, of the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary, vol. iv, p. 106.
2. Annex IV, C of the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania as submitted to the Peace Conference by the Council of Foreign Ministers, ibid., p. 87.
3. In the draft peace treaties with Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland, motor torpedo boats were dealt with in articles 14, 12, 13, and 16, respectively.