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, Fourteenth Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, December 3, 1946, 4 p.m.²⁷

New York, December 3, 1946, 4 p.m.

secret
USDEL(CFM) (46) (NY) 14th Meeting

Record of Decisions

Mr. Bevin: Could we not approve the Record of Decisions of the 41st and 42nd Meetings in Paris and the 1st to the 9th Meetings in New York? There is a difference of opinion on the decisions regarding Article 74A and Article 20 but I am prepared to accept the Soviet draft.

M. Molotov: I have not had time to study these minutes but unless I object to them by tomorrow we can consider them as adopted.

Compensation²⁸

Mr. Bevin: The Conference recommended that compensation be figured at 75%. Does anyone propose 100%?

M. Molotov: Has the question raised in paragraph 4 of the Rumanian draft been settled?

Mr. Bevin: There is no agreement on this. The U.K. Delegation desires this paragraph in the Treaty.

M. Molotov: The corresponding paragraph in the Italian Treaty was withdrawn.

Mr. Bevin: The situation is not the same. It is desired to have this paragraph in the Rumanian Treaty because of events which have transpired in Rumania. This would be justified in the interests of the Allies. All I ask for is that the nationals of the United Nations be given equal treatment.

M. Molotov: This question is covered by paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 24.

Mr. Bevin: These paragraphs deal with restoration. Paragraph D of Article 24 deals with equal treatment in the future.

M. Molotov: But there is also Article 30 which guarantees equal treatment.

Mr. Bevin: Paragraph 30 appears to limit such treatment to a period of 18 months.

M. Molotov: In the meantime agreements can be concluded. I Relieve that there might be some misunderstanding as to what is meant by “fair and equal treatment”.

Mr. Bevin: That is qualified by the following words. However, I would agree to the deletion of the words “fair and equal” and the substitution of the word “same”. Therefore, U.N. nationals would have the same treatment as that accorded to Rumanian nationals. Furthermore, I would be willing to delete the words “and in no event discriminate”.

M. Molotov: Article 30 fully covers this matter.

Mr. Bevin: I am told that it does not.

M. Couve de Murville: Could we not supplement Article 30 by adding the words “including the allocation of raw materials and foreign exchange for the rehabilitation of property which suffered during the war”.

M. Molotov: It would be undesirable to change the wording of an agreed upon article.

Mr. Bevin: Can we agree to 24D with my amendment?

Mr. Byrnes: I agree.

M. Molotov: I see no reason for the paragraph. What is the situation with regard to paragraph E?

Mr. Bevin: That is included in the Italian Treaty. It is my understanding that paragraph D received a ⅔ majority at the Peace Conference but the U.S. and U.S.S.R. voted against it.

M. Couve de Murville: We think that paragraph D of the Italian Treaty and paragraph E of the Rumanian Treaty should be accepted. It is only fair that this compensation should be paid.

M. Molotov: I cannot agree to that. We have never agreed to the principle of full compensation. If the French support full compensation, would they support full reparation compensation?

M. Couve de Murville: We have abandoned full compensation and support the 75% figure in connection with damages to U.N. property. But there should be full compensation in this case. Paragraph D deals with small amounts and would not greatly affect the total.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation is prepared to accept paragraphs B and C but not D or E because they go beyond the limits of what we have agreed upon.

Mr. Bevtn: What are your views with regard to paragraph A?

M. Molotov: My views have not changed. Furthermore, I believe that paragraph D is guaranteed under Article 30.

Mr. Byrnes: We discussed paragraph A several days ago and I suggested compensation in the amount of 50%.

M. Molotov: I wish to continue studying this proposal.

M. Couve de Murville: The French Delegation cannot accept the U.S. proposal. It is not equitable for a country whose internal legislation provides for full compensation to U.N. nationals for losses incurred on its territory.

The Ministers deferred further consideration of this question.

Bulgarian Assets (Article 24)²⁹

M. Molotov: If my colleagues cannot meet me on this matter, I will agree to the adoption of this article.

Fair Prices for Reparations (Article 30 bis)³⁰

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation believes that we should not include this article in the Peace Treaty. This question should be settled on the basis of bilateral agreements.

Mr. Byrnes: I wish to offer the following proposal:

“Where property of United Nations nationals, of property in which such nationals have an interest, is used for the payment of reparations, the Rumanian Government shall make adequate, effective and prompt compensation. In the case of reparation from current production, the compensation shall be in local currency except that it shall include sufficient foreign exchange or products so that the United Nations nationals can recover reasonable foreign currency expenditures and transfer a reasonable return on their investment.”

M. Molotov: The experts might study this proposal but in substance I do not believe that this question should be included in the Treaty.

Mr. Bevin: We could accept the U.S. proposal.

M. Molotov: It is a very complicated question which must be studied. I still think it unnecessary.

Mr. Bevin: Could our experts look into this tomorrow morning?

M. Molotov: We must reach agreement on the question ourselves. The Ministers deferred further consideration of this question.

Shipping (Annex IVC of Rumanian Treaty)³¹

Mr. Bevin: If we can obtain agreement on compensation, I will be prepared to withdraw this paragraph.

Interpretation³²

Mr. Bevin: We all agreed that disputes would go to the Four Ambassadors but we have not agreed where they would go if the Four Ambassadors failed to reach agreement. The U.S., U.K. and French Delegations agreed that such disputes would go to the International Court of Justice.

M. Molotov: I am prepared to accept the decision we reached on the settlement of economic disputes to the effect that the arbiter should be named by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

Mr. Byrnes: I believe that would be acceptable.

Mr. Bevin: In such a case the article would be re-worded to state that the Secretary General would be requested to select an arbiter.

M. Couve de Murville: If we do this, it would be preferable to have an arbitration commission—that is to adopt the same solution we agreed on for Article 72.

Mr. Bevin: I suggest that this matter be referred to the Deputies for drafting. (The Ministers agreed to refer this matter to the Deputies.)

Motor Torpedo Boats³³

M. Molotov: The French Delegation wished to consult its naval experts on this question.

M. Couve de Murville: The French Delegation cannot accept the idea that the naval provisions of the Italian Treaty can be altered to permit Italy to have a limited number of motor torpedo boats. The Italians used these special crafts during both World Wars in an offensive way. The Italian Navy has been reduced as well as its shipbuilding industry. Italy would have a difficult time to build battleships or carriers but it could easily build many motor torpedo boats and, even if limited, could start on experimental models. For this reason the French Delegation does not believe that we should change the pertinent articles of the Italian Treaty which have been agreed upon by us and by the Peace Conference.

M. Molotov: Does the French Delegation object to small states possessing motor torpedo boats?

M. Couve de Murville: I do not believe this objection comes from France.

Mr. Byrnes: It does come from the United States. A small fellow with a big gun can kill you just as easy as a big fellow with a small gun. We have all agreed that MTB’s are offensive weapons. The U.S. Delegation believes that the same provision should be in all the treaties. I will agree either way but I prefer that there be a prohibition against this weapon. I believe that Italy should be treated the same as the other countries.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation does not believe that this question can be settled by treating Italy and the small nations alike. There is no reason to have fears in this respect. Italy has battleships, cruisers, destroyers and there would be not much difference if she had motor torpedo boats, but we should accept the principle that small nations should be permitted to have motor torpedo boats.

No agreement was reached on this question.

The Danube

M. Molotov: I would like one more day to think over the draft proposed by the Deputies.³⁴ I think we will find a satisfactory wording. If we find acceptable wordings on all the other articles of the Treaty, I am sure that we can come to agreement on this.

Italo-Austrian Agreement on South Tyrol³⁵

M. Molotov: I suggest that this article be re-worded to read as follows: “The Allied and Associated Powers have taken note of the provisions, the text of which is annexed to the present Treaty, agreed upon by the Austrian and Italian Governments on September 5, 1946.” I do not think it advisable to include any appraisal of the agreement and that it would be preferable to limit the article to the statement that the Allied and Associated Powers have merely taken note of the agreement.

The Ministers agreed to the Soviet proposal.

Bulgarian Frontier and Demilitarization

Mr. Bevin: My colleagues said yesterday that they would agree to articles 1 and 11B of the Treaty.³⁶ I reserved my position. I now agree to these articles.

(Agreed)

Deputies’ Report

Mr. Bevin: Shall we now hear the Deputies’ report? (Agreed).

M. Alphand: Mr. Chairman, the Deputies have devoted two meetings³⁷ to the consideration of the organization of the provisional regime of Trieste. We took as a basis for our discussions on one hand the decision already arrived at by the Council of Foreign Ministers and on the other the proposal made by the United Kingdom, United States, and French Delegations. The document which we took as a basis for our work was the document prepared by the United Kingdom Delegation³⁸ which was taking up the general lines of the draft instructions to the governor submitted by the French Delegation. We first agreed unanimously that the provisions which should apply to the Free Territory before the entry into force of the permanent statute should be the subject of a special document appended to the treaty and entitled “Instrument relating to the provisional regime of the Free Territory of Trieste,” as an annex to Article 16. This document has been circulated by the Secretary General.³⁹

We couldn’t reach agreement on certain points and, according to our custom, these points have been inserted in the document.

I’ll now state the main points of disagreement. First of all, Article 2, the text refers to different proposals. The French, Soviet and American Delegations recommend the adoption of the formula which was already discussed by the Council of Foreign Ministers whereas the United Kingdom Delegation suggests a new wording.

Article 4. The Soviet Delegation considers that the words, “on a provisional basis” should be replaced by the words, “in conformity with the provisions of the permanent statute.” On the other hand, the Soviet Delegation considers that the words, “under the general direction of the governor” superfluous.

Article 6. This article results from a proposal of the British Delegation. It takes up in substance Article 12 of the draft for provisional regime submitted on August 29 to the Council of Ministers by the British Delegation. It provides for certain powers to be accorded to the senior officer of the Allied contingent in the case where he receives instructions from the governor. The American and French Delegations considered that such an article was not necessary and could be dispensed with. On the other hand, the Soviet Delegation supported the British proposal.

Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11. These articles deal with the conditions in which the citizenship of the inhabitants of Trieste and organization of the elections shall be determined. The Soviet Delegation has suggested to substitute for these four articles the decision arrived at by the Council concerning the organization of the elections. The American, British and French Delegations have expressed that Article 9, dealing with the problem of citizenship, which is entirely independent from the question of the elections, should be maintained. The provisions agreed upon by the Ministers concerning the elections should replace Articles 10, 11 and 12.

Finally, it was decided to submit to the Council of Ministers the text of Articles 9, 10, 11 and 12, the parts in brackets corresponding to the various points of view of the Deputies. In general, the Soviet Delegation has requested, against the opinion of the three other Delegations, that the democratic organizations be in each stage of the electoral proceedings associated to the part which the Governor and Council of Government are called upon to play. The Soviet Delegation has opposed, on the other hand, the idea that the competent organ to settle disputes resulting from electoral proceedings be presided over by the Governor.

Article 14. This article was agreed to by the French, British and American Delegations. The Soviet Delegation also agreed, but only provisionally and subject to more search and analysis.

We were also intrusted by the Council with the task of considering the financial questions arising in the Free Territory during this provisional period. In this connection, the United States Delegation has circulated a draft protocol which should be signed by the representatives of the Four Powers, and this draft protocol has been circulated by the Secretary General.⁴⁰ The Soviet Delegation expressed the opinion that the Council of Ministers would only be able to appreciate and to arrive at a decision on this protocol after the presentation by the Trieste Committee with the participation of economic experts of their report concerning the details of these provisions for the Free Territory.

And all agreed to refer to the Trieste Commission, meeting this afternoon, the question of figures necessary to fill the gaps in the finances of the territory. Consequently, Article 13 of the instrument on the provisional regime of Trieste has been approved only by the British, American and French Delegations. The Soviet Delegation has reserved its position pending the presentation of the conclusions of the Trieste Commission on this question.

And finally, it was unanimously decided that the Economic Committee would go into the provisions of dealing with monetary and tariff questions which shall apply to the Free Territory during the provisional period.

Instrument for the Provisional Regime of the Free Territory of Trieste

(Reference is to document CFM(46) (NY) 43)

Article 2

Mr. Bevin: The first lot of brackets are in Article 2. There are two proposals from which the Council must choose. The brackets begin at “as and when” in the next to last line of the first paragraph and go on to the end, and then there is the second paragraph which is all in brackets.

Mr. Byrnes: The United States is satisfied with the first words.

M. Molotov: I suggest that we accept the last lines of the first paragraph and the second paragraph down to “by the present document”. (Agreed).

Article 4

Mr. Bevin: Article 4. The difficulty is that the first proposal is “on a provisional basis” and the second is “in accordance with the provisions of the Permanent Statute”.

M. Molotov: I propose retaining the words, “on a provisional basis” and the exclusion of the words in the second set of brackets, “in accordance with the provisions of the Permanent Statute” provided that the last set of brackets, “under the general direction of the Governor” are also excluded.

Mr. Bevin: If we take out the last words, under whom will the Director of Public Security be in the provisional regime?

M. Molotov: In accordance with Article 2 which indicates more specifically the manner in which it shall be done. The corresponding provisions of the Permanent Statute apply in the provisional regime. The retaining of these last words will lead to uncertainty.

Mr. Bevin: He gets instructions under Article 2 and normally acts under the Provisional Council.

M. Molotov: I agree. The Governor will appoint.

Mr. Byrnes: What will happen if the words “under the general direction of the Governor” are deleted is that the Director of Public Security in the provisional period shall normally be under the authority of the Council of Government.

M. Molotov: That corresponds with Article 2.

Mr. Byrnes: In Article 2 it will be governed by the provisions of Article 9⁴¹ which provides for the Permanent Statute in the absence of the words, “under the general direction of the Governor”.

M. Molotov: 8 bis and 9 bis are accepted.⁴² These articles define the rights of the Governor in appointing a Director of Police, and under them the Director of Police submits his reports to the Governor and consults with him. Article 9 provides for the case of emergency, otherwise there will be contradiction with Article 2.

Mr. Byrnes: I have no objections.

M. Couve de Murville: I agree.

Mr. Bevin: Then the first lot of brackets go. You delete “in accordance with the provisions of the Permanent Statute” and also “under the general direction of the Governor”.

Article 6

Mr. Bevin: We will go on to Article 6.

M. Couve de Murville: Article 6 gives rise to confusion and is unnecessary.

Mr. Bevin: We virtually hand troops over to the Governor, and that may be a danger in the opinion of their commanders and there should be a safeguard provided. We must say something, as the commanders are put under another man who may order something which will violate the regulations governing the commanders’ actions. We suggest deleting the words, “or will be employed for purposes inconsistent with the responsibilities of the Security Council.” That could place the military commanders in a very difficult position, having to decide that.

Mr. Byrnes: I think it would be a good idea to have our military people have a chance to discuss this.

Mr. Bevin: We can have the Military Committee meet in the morning to discuss it.

Articles 8, 9, 10, and 11

Mr. Bevin: The next brackets are in Article 8. As we deal with the electoral rolls in the next article, wouldn’t it be enough to deal here with citizenship? Thus we can make the Governor’s duty in this respect only to deal with citizenship, and it will have to be in the Permanent Statute.

M. Molotov: I agree that two questions in the same article make for greater difficulty. Questions regarding citizenship should be decided by the Provisional Council of Government in accordance with our agreement that citizenship comes within the province of the Popular Assembly and in its absence is in the province of the Council of Government and not in that of the Governor. Can we let this go until tomorrow when I shall produce a formula for this?

Mr. Byrnes: I wonder if it is necessary to adopt these Articles 8, 9, 10, and 11? We have already agreed on the principles for inclusion in the provisional Statute. In it is a heading, “Elections to the Constituent Assembly”. It provides that the Governor in consultation with the provisional Council of Government will be responsible for elections, etc. The Governor has the power to provide for the elections and for setting the time for them. If we now adopt four or five articles dealing with this subject, they may conflict.

M. Molotov: I think your proposal is a good one.

Mr. Bevin: We will delete all the Articles 8 through 11?

M. Couve de Murville: They will all be replaced by the provisions you just read?

M. Molotov: I agree, but I am anxious that when we provide for the setting up of electoral commissions that “democratic organizations” be mentioned.

Mr. Byrnes: We have already agreed on the principles here. I think it would be better if you did not bring up this matter.

M. Molotov: All right.

Article 12

Then we go on to Article 12.

M. Molotov: Article 12 contradicts Article 2. It is necessary that we be guided by the Statute as we indicate in Article 2.

Mr. Bevin: There is nothing in the Statute about this.

M. Molotov: The Statute says who appoints in Article 8 and Article 8b.

Mr. Bevin: All right. There is another concession to Mr. Molotov.

Article 13

Mr. Bevin: Article 13.

Mr. Byrnes: I wonder if we should not consider the protocol on this subject.⁴³ It will help in determining our attitude toward Article 13. I will ask Senator Vandenberg, who is on the Council of the United Nations, to state his recommendations.

Senator Vandenberg: As written, this requests, “such sums as may in the opinion of the General Assembly”. There is no way that the General Assembly can have an opinion on what is needed. The General Assembly is about to set up a system for emergency expenses and the method that is going to be set up is to provide for emergency expenditures on order of the Security Council with the approval of the Advisory Committee on Budget and Administration. The first suggestion I would make is that instead of saying “such sums as may be in the opinion of the General Assembly”, we should say, “such sums as may in the opinion of the Security Council and with the approval of the Advisory Committee on Budget and Administration …”. The second major change that I would suggest is the elimination of paragraph b regarding the deficits which are to be met by the United Nations. In the first place, two thirds of the members of the United Nations have their own problem of trying to find foreign exchange, and I very much doubt whether they are going to be willing to provide foreign exchange for somebody else when they haven’t got any for themselves. Furthermore, it has been proposed that Italian currency be used, and in that event the exchange problem is transferred to Italian currency under the international regulations. My objection to the whole language is that it seems to invite the Free Territory to operate at the expense of the United Nations. So in the fifth line I suggest that you change the words, “the taking of necessary steps” to read, “the taking of temporary steps.” When you talk about the funds that may be “needed”, I suggest that you talk about the funds that may be “required”, which is a far sterner word. And, finally, when you talk about any deficit in the administrative budget, I suggest that you say “any deficit in the current operating budget”.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation agrees with Senator Vandenberg’s critique, but as to its conclusions, time is needed to study the question. Our experts can work on the draft as a result of his remarks.

Mr. Byrnes: I think we should have the Economic Experts consider Article 13 and the protocol and report to us tomorrow afternoon.

Senator Vandenberg: May I suggest that you send it to the Economic Committee and instruct them to call in the responsible financial officer of the United Nations and be sure that they get the right formula on this.

M. Couve de Murville: I also think that the Economic Committee might look into the figures which are at stake.

M. Molotov: We understand that definite funds will be required to maintain the administrative machinery in the Free Territory because the Governor will be an agent of the United Nations, but as to any funds needed by the Free Territory itself, operating costs, then the Soviet Delegation is very cautious and wouldn’t like to commit itself.

Mr. Bevin: I suggest this be left with the Trieste Committee as they have dealt with these matters before. (Agreed).

Article 13 goes with it.

Article 14

Mr. Bevin: Now we will go on to Article 14. There is a general reservation by the Soviet Delegation.

M. Molotov: There are no brackets, but the article itself is doubtful. It says that the Governor will issue decrees and we have not mentioned that anywhere before. It will be contradictory to Article 2, which says that the rights of the Governor will be defined by the Permanent Statute where it is applicable, and this Statute doesn’t say a word about decrees. It would be a mistake to put this in. Can’t we take this article out—there is no need for it.

Mr. Bevin: If we do, who will alter a law in this period? And, what is more important, who will alter the regulations?

M. Molotov: The Council of Government, and as for the Governor, he can prohibit what is not right on the basis of the Statute.

Mr. Bevin: We must make existing laws continue.

M. Molotov: They will remain in force without this article.

Mr. Bevin: No, all that we have provided for is that the Allied Military Government will act until the Governor assumes office, and then nothing can happen until the Assembly meets.

M. Molotov: We believe that as long as there is no Assembly that the provisional Council of Government will carry out the functions of the permanent Council of Government and of the Assembly, while the Governor will carry out the duties for the provisional and for the permanent regime. This will provide a way out and at the same time secure to the Governor control over the decrees of the provisional government.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, but there is no provision for it.

M. Molotov: Then we can keep the first sentence.

Mr. Byrnes: I suggest that the first sentence be retained because the existing laws must be continued. If I understand correctly, the Soviet Delegation agrees to that.

M. Molotov: As amended. The first amendment would be to delete, “by the Governor”, so that the text would read as follows: “Existing laws and regulations shall remain valid unless revoked or amended by the provisional Council of Government, the Governor resorting to the use of the rights granted to him in the appropriate places by the provisions of the Statute”.

Mr. Byrnes: I don’t think we need take the position that during the period of the provisional government the Governor we appoint should not be given the power to revoke or amend laws or regulations after consultation with the provisional Council of Government. It would not be right to say we must not give this power to the Governor we ourselves will name. Our difficulty is that none of us can anticipate what need will arise for a change in the laws or regulations. If we have sufficient confidence in the Governor to entrust him with great powers, we should let him have the powers necessary for emergencies. This experiment can’t succeed unless we select a man we can trust as Governor. We know that anything he can do can be repealed by the Assembly as soon as it is elected. I would be afraid to leave him without the power to do something important, important to the people of the Territory. I would agree to eliminate all after the first sentence.

M. Molotov: What decrees and laws are meant?

Mr. Byrnes: I understand the Military Government has continued—

M. Molotov: Also the Italian laws?

Mr. Byrnes: Yes. The Military Government has continued certain laws in force that determine the conduct of the people there. All the laws that would govern a state in the Territory had to be continued by the Military Government. There will have to be some body of law to govern in this period. There would be no changes to affect the rights of property or the criminal statutes. They should be continued unless there were an exceptional case. Some of the laws, that is, some of the old Italian laws, may be in conflict with the provisions of the Statute. If that is true, we have agreed that we would want our representative to have the right to make them accord with the Statute.

M. Molotov: Would it be acceptable to say, “by the Governor by agreement with the provisional Council of Government”?

Mr. Byrnes: Yes. Our adoption of the provisions regarding human rights may be in conflict with the existing statutes there. I think your suggestion is along the line of what should be done. He could act only after consultation with the Council of Government. Does that mean agreement with the majority of the Council of Government?

M.Molotov: Yes.

Mr. Bevin: I am very worried about this. There have been dozens of military decrees, and if the Governor wants to make any changes, he can’t make any without the agreement of his nominees.

M. Molotov: The provisional Council of Government is the supreme local authority in the Free Territory, but the Governor is not a local authority. The provisional Council of Government is made up of local inhabitants. It would be a mistake to make decisions without the local authorities and would contradict Article 2. I have no objection to granting the Governor the right to repeal or suspend laws, but as to new laws or amendments of the regulations, I have objections.

Mr. Bevin: Then the paragraph would read: “existing laws and regulations shall remain valid unless revoked or amended by the Governor after consultation with the provisional Council of Government. In the issue of new laws he shall act in agreement with the majority of the provisional Council of Government.”

M. Molotov: Not quite. This is what I say, “The Governor shall have no [the?] right to repeal or suspend any existing law or regulation. If, however, it is necessary to amend a law or regulation in force, the corresponding decisions will be made by the Governor in agreement with the Provisional Council of Government”. There would be concurrent decision—

Mr. Bevin: We must make it clear somewhere that the Council acts by the rule of majority.

M. Molotov: It couldn’t be otherwise.

Mr. Bevin: But when new legislation is carried against the Governor, then his right to object would apply under the Statute?

M.Molotov: Yes.

Mr. Bevin: It will have to be drafted properly.

M. Molotov: Very well. Let us instruct the Deputies to prepare a draft if the basis is acceptable.

Mr. Byrnes: I thought we agreed, but it is all right with me.

Mr. Bevin: Do you object to the last words: “These decrees will have force of law unless and until they are modified, abrogated, or superseded by acts of the Popular Assembly.”?

M. Molotov: That can be accepted.

Mr. Bevin: That ends that document. The Deputies will put it into shape.

Provisions regarding Currency and Customs

Mr. Bevtn: Then, there is here another item, “Provisions regarding currency and Customs U.K. draft⁴⁴ referred to Committee of Economic Experts”. The draft was referred to the Committee of Economic Experts who will be asked to report, and there are brackets on that. I didn’t notice them.

Mr. Byrnes: Yesterday afternoon we asked that Articles 77A and 78 be turned over to the Legal and Drafting Committee to make a report. I understand that there has been no meeting and request that they meet tomorrow.

Mr. Bevin: Then tomorrow at 11:00 o’clock the Legal and Drafting Committee will meet, the Military Committee, the Deputies, and the Naval Committee; and we will meet at 4:00.

The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

27. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, p. 1400.
28. Compensation was dealt with in the following articles of the Draft Peace Treaties: Italy—article 68, paragraph 4; Rumania—article 24, paragraph 4; Bulgaria—article 22, paragraph 4; Hungary—article 23, paragraph 4; Finland—article 24, paragraph 4.
29. See the record of the previous discussion of this article by the Council at its 12th Meeting, November 30, pp. 1356 and 1357.
30. For the text of article 30 bis as included in the Record of Recommendations of the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, see vol. iv, p. 926.
31. For text, see ibid., p. 87.
32. In the various draft treaties, the article in question was numbered as follows: Italy—article 76; Rumania—article 36; Bulgaria—article 34; Hungary—article 35; Finland—article 33.
33. In the various draft treaties where it appeared, this article was numbered as follows: Rumania—article 14; Bulgaria—article 12; Hungary—article 13;. Finland—article 16.
34. The reference here is to a Soviet proposal regarding the Danube as amended by the Deputies at their 123rd Meeting, November 29; for text, see footnote 71, p. 1340.
35. For the text of the article under reference here, 10a of the Record of Recommendations of the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, see vol. iv, p. 893.
36. Ibid., pp. 96 and 935.
37. The reference here is to the 125th and 126th Meetings of the Deputies, December 2 and 3; the Records of Decisions of these meetings are not printed.
38. CFM(46) (NY)23, November 22, 1946, p. 1252.
39. Circulated to the Council as CFM(46) (NY)43, December 3, 1946, p. 1396.
40. CFM(46) (NY)44, December 3, 1948, p. 1402.
41. The Secretary of State appears to have reference here to article 9 of the Principles To Govern the Drafting of the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste, set forth in document CFM(46) (NY)28, November 25, 1946, p. 1278.
42. There appears to be an error in these minutes at this point. Molotov is presumably referring to articles 8 bis and 9 of the Principles To Govern the Drafting of the Statute, referred to in the previous footnote. Article 8 bis, which defined the Governor’s responsibilities for ensuring public order, and article 9 were adopted by the Council of Foreign Ministers at its 8th Informal Meeting, November 25, 1946; see the United States Delegation Minutes of that meeting, p. 1269. No article 9 bis can be identified.
43. The reference here is to the proposal by the United States Delegation, CFM(46) (NY)44, December 3, 1946, p. 1402.
44. CFM(46) (NY)45, December 3, 1946, not printed.