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, Sixteenth Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, December 5, 1946, 4 p.m.⁷⁰

New York, December 5, 1946, 4 p.m.

secret
USDEL(CFM) (46) (NY) 16th Meeting

Report of the Deputies

M. Gusev: The Deputies examined the draft Statute for Trieste⁷¹ and heard a report⁷² by the Chairman of the Trieste Commission regarding the expenses necessary to maintain the Governor and his staff.

The Deputies agreed to accept thirty articles of the Statute. Since the Yugoslavs and Italians have submitted new memoranda. Articles 31A (Freedom of Transit) and 31B (Railways) have been referred to the Trieste Commission for further study. Article 31C (Civil Aviation) has also been referred back to the Commission for further study. It was agreed to send Article 35 to the Legal and Drafting Commission with a view to bringing it in line with the C.F.M. decision relative to Article 76 of the Italian Treaty. The Articles which are in disagreement are as follows: 6, 25, 26 paragraph 3, 31, 33 paragraphs 2 and 3, 34.

The Deputies heard the Chairman of the Trieste Commission on its consultation with representatives of the United Nations concerning the amount necessary to maintain the Governor and his staff. The Deputies instructed the Commission to submit concrete recommendations and sums and a proposal as to how this question should be placed before the General Assembly.

Draft Articles of Permanent Statute for Free Territory of Trieste

Article 6

Mr. Byrnes: I am advised that the Soviet Delegation objects to the inclusion of the words “a Governor”.⁷³

M. Molotov: The Governor is above the Government. He is a representative of the Security Council, and not a member of the Government. It would not be suitable to include him.

Mr. Byrnes: Unless you include the Governor, you nullify our agreement contained in paragraph 8. We enumerated in that paragraph the responsibilities of the Governor, and it seems to me that he must be considered as part of the Government.

M. Molotov: I do not consider him a member of the Government, but someone above the Government. It would be illogical to include him. I propose that we either strike out the entire article or include it with the words “a Governor” deleted.

Mr. Bevin: Can we say “for the administration of the Free Territory there shall be a Governor, a Council of Government, etc.”?

Mr. Byrnes: It is more than the administration of the Free Territory. I propose that we say “for the Government of the Free Territory there shall be, etc.”.

The Ministers agreed on this wording for Article 6.⁷⁴

Article 25⁷⁵

M. Molotov: The question of the power of pardon should be left to the Constitution.

Mr. Bevin: We should be pretty clear on this point. It is my view that this power should be in the hands of an impartial person who is not subject to passions or prejudices.

M. Molotov: This is not a function to be carried out by the representative of the Security Council but by the local authorities. It is a local matter and has no relation to the security of the area.

Mr. Byrnes: Could we say “the power of pardon and reprieve shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”?

M. Molotov: We should not induce the Governor to deal with any affairs that do not touch upon the security of the area. His job is not to reprieve criminals. He is to guarantee order and security.

Mr. Byrnes: May I suggest that this responsibility is placed on the Governor by the Statute. He must guarantee human rights and he is responsible for law and order. If someone else reprieved criminals and turned them loose on society, it would make it impossible for the Governor to fulfill his functions. His responsibilities are set forth in Article 20. I consider that it would be wise to give him this power and also to say, as M. Molotov has suggested, that this power be defined in the Constitution.

M. Molotov: Let me reflect on Mr. Byrnes’ proposal.

Mr. Bevin: It would be more correct to say “in accordance with provisions to be laid down in the Constitution”.

At a later stage in the conversation M. Molotov agreed to that proposal.

Article 26, paragraph 3.⁷⁶

M. Molotov: This paragraph should be excluded.

Mr. Byrnes: I think we should say that the Free Territory could become a member of specialized agencies but not of the U.N. itself. The Free Territory is already tied to the Security Council. It could not join the U.N. or conclude political alliances with other powers.

M. Couve de Murville: We do not doubt that the Free Territory has the right to participate in specialized bodies if such bodies so desire. There is no necessity to stress this point here, and I believe that paragraph 3 might be suppressed. The difficulty is with the organizations themselves, that is, whether they would be willing to admit the Free Territory, but there can be no doubt that the Free Territory would apply for membership in the International Bank and other such organizations.

M. Molotov: If my colleagues find it necessary to keep this paragraph in Article 26, I do not object.

The Ministers agreed to the retention of paragraph 3.

Article 31⁷⁷

Mr. Byrnes: I am advised that the port heretofore had provisions for the registration of ships. Would it not be helpful to have the same provisions in the Free Territory. The Czechs and others have asked for this and it seems to me that it would be advisable to include paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the Statute. I understand paragraphs (a) and (b) were proposed by the U.S. Delegation and that paragraph (c) was proposed by the U.K.–French Delegations.

M. Molotov: Paragraph (c) is connected with paragraphs (a) and (b). I would agree to the retention of paragraph (c) with the deletion of the last sentence.⁷⁸ With respect to paragraph (b) we should make mention only of the Czechs and the Swiss since we have not yet concluded treaties with Austria– [and] Hungary.⁷⁹ I agree to (b) and (c) with these amendments.

Mr. Byrnes: What objection would there be in saying “Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, and Austria or Hungary whenever peace treaties are concluded with those latter two countries”?

M. Molotov: I would agree to this.

Mr. Byrnes: (b) would then read “The Free Territory shall open special maritime registers for Czechoslovak, Swiss and Hungarian and Austrian ships and vessels when peace treaties are concluded with these countries, etc.”.

The Ministers agreed to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) as amended by Mr. Byrnes and with the deletion of the last paragraph of paragraph (c).

Article 33⁸⁰

Mr. Byrnes: Paragraphs (a)l and (b) are agreed to. Paragraphs (a) 2 and 3 are not.

M. Molotov: I suggest that at the end of the first sentence of paragraph (a)2 we include the words “on the terms which will be provided for in the Constitution of the Free Territory”.⁸¹

Mr. Byrnes: I agree. Would it not be clearer if we struck out the words “shall within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty”? I propose that we leave in the word “however”. This would give the Italians time to opt.

Mr. Bevin: Would it not be better to say six months after the entry into force of the Constitution? Then the people would know they have that much time to make their option.

M. Molotov: Mr. Bevin’s proposal is acceptable.

Mr. Byrnes: I agree, but would it not be clearer to say “for a period of six months after the coming into force of the Constitution”?

Mr. Bevin: How about citizens of other countries? Could a Yugoslav opt for Yugoslav citizenship?

Mr. Byrnes: They keep their citizenship whatever it is.

Mr. Bevin: This option provides for those whose customary language is Italian. If a Yugoslav desires to opt, what would happen? Why should this article be limited to Italians?

Mr. Byrnes: Paragraph (a)1 applies to Italian citizens who become Trieste citizens unless they opt. Yugoslav citizens would not be affected. Yugoslav citizens don’t lose their citizenship. If they desire to become Trieste citizens, paragraph (b) would come into force.

The Ministers agreed to Article 33 on the understanding that the beginning of paragraph (a)2 would read as follows:

“The Government of the Free Territory shall, however, provide that the persons referred to in paragraph 1 over the age of eighteen years (or married persons whether under or over that age) whose customary language is Italian shall be entitled to opt for Italian citizenship within a period of six months from the coming into force of the Constitution.”

Article 34⁸²

Mr. Byrnes: The French Delegation desires the deletion of the words “and Croat” and the inclusion of the words “the Constitution shall determine in what circumstances Croat may be used as a third official language”. I am advised that only one percent of the population is affected by this. Would it not be very expensive to have a third official language for such a small minority?

M. Couve de Murville: I agree that we delete the words “and Croat” and that the Constitution decide whether there will be a third language or not.

The Ministers agreed to Article 34.

Article 38⁸³

Mr. Byrnes: I am informed that the legal experts believe that Article 38 should read as follows: “The present Statute shall come into force on a date which shall be determined by the Security Council of the United Nations except that those provisions of the present Statute which are not inconsistent with the instrument for the provisional regime and are applicable during the period of such regime shall enter into force along with the provisions of such instrument”. I suggest that this draft be referred to the legal experts.

M. Molotov: I have no objection.

Article 77A of Italian Treaty

Mr. Byrnes: I understand that a report (CFM(46) (NY)49)⁸⁴ has been circulated. Shall we discuss it?

M. Molotov: I think we had better adopt 77A as it stands in the Italian Treaty rather than undertake a redrafting of it.

The Ministers adopted Article 77A.⁸⁵

Motor Torpedo Boats

Mr. Byrnes: I understand that the French desire to reconsider this question. The U.K. Delegation proposed that a certain number of motor torpedo boats be allowed to Bulgaria. M. Molotov suggested six and Mr. Bevin agreed. I thought there was agreement that whatever applied to one country would apply to all.

M. Couve de Murville: The French Delegation has taken the position that we cannot change the naval clauses of the Italian Treaty in order to permit Italy to possess MTB’s, but the French Delegation agrees that Bulgaria might have six MTB’s as its position is not comparable to Italy.

Mr. Byrnes: I recommend that if Italy be allowed no MTB’s, the same treatment be accorded to others. Can we agree that if there is a prohibition for Italy, the same prohibition will be contained in the other treaties? If on the other hand the C.F.M. desires to name a certain number for Bulgaria, I request that the same number be allowed for Italy.

Mr. Bevin: Would you agree to unlimited MTB’s.

Mr. Byrnes: No. If you agree to an unlimited amount to others, then there would be an unlimited amount to Italy. If Italy is limited, then there would be the same limitations for Bulgaria.

Mr. Byrnes: We agree to a limitation of 7,000 tons for Bulgaria. I understand that that limit will not be changed by whatever we agree to in respect to MTB’s.

M. Molotov: I am surprised that this small matter raises such obstacles. I agree to stand by the recommendation of the Paris Conference in respect to MTB’s. They are now buried. I hope that this will help solve other questions.

The Ministers agreed to the pertinent articles of the Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Finnish treaties on motor torpedo boats.⁸⁶

The Danube

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation is willing to accept the proposal concerning the Danube which was examined by the Deputies.⁸⁷ If this proposal meets with no objection, we can call it a decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Bevin: I propose that we insert the words “within six months” when we are talking about the convocation of the conference.⁸⁸ I also ask that the conference be instructed to work out a new convention so as not to confuse it with the old.

M.Molotov: I agree.

Mr. Byrnes: I understand that paragraph 1⁸⁹ will be included in the Treaty. What is the status of paragraph 2?⁹⁰ It is my understanding that this will be a declaration or agreement of the C.F.M.

Mr. Bevin: I suggest this subject go to the Drafting Committee.

The Ministers agreed provisionally to the text of the Danube which had been referred to them by the Deputies and also agreed that it should go to the Drafting Committee for final drafting.

Fair Prices

M. Molotov: I have the proposal of the Soviet Delegation regarding prices, English and Russian text.⁹¹

Mr. Bevin: I take it, M. Molotov, that these words “without prejudice to the execution of obligations in regard to reparations” means that the delivery must go on while this is being discussed.

M. Molotov: According to the prices agreed to.

Mr. Byrnes: What period would you suggest then?

M. Molotov: Two or three months.

Mr. Bevin: There is just one thing. Would you consider aiding to “acquired from nationals of Allied and Associated Powers’ to words “or companies owned by them”?

M. Molotov: I agree.

M. Couve de Murville: I agree.

Reparations

Mr. Byrnes: The next question is reparations.

M. Couve de Murville: I wonder if we could settle the problems which are still outstanding by agreeing along the following lines where reparations and compensation are concerned. As far as reparations goes, we had agreed on reparations from Bulgaria and Italy to Yugoslavia and Greece and the outstanding problem was Albania. Could we agree that $5 million be paid by Italy to Albania?

M. Molotov: I have no objection.

M. Couve de Murville: I am still under definite instructions as to compensation, but I have a suggestion so that we can finish our work, and if I lose my job, at least agreement will have been achieved. First, to accept the suggestion made yesterday by Mr. Bevin that compensation be paid to the extent of two-thirds to United Nations nationals and also to accept the same ratio for compensation for losses other than war losses which are foreseen in Article 68D of the Italian Treaty and for which the Conference had recommended 100% compensation.⁹²

Mr. Bevin: I could accept the $5 million if I can get agreement on the two-thirds and if I can get paragraphs D and E on the Rumanian Treaty,⁹³ but I will accept the two-thirds under E according to M. Couve de Murville’s suggestion.

Mr. Byrnes: I understood Mr. Bevin to ask M. Molotov a question with reference to Article 24.

Mr. Bevin: D and E. Take the two-thirds in E and agree to $5 million for Albania and put D in the Treaty so these countries can go on and do their job.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation will have no objection to these two paragraphs, but I think that we could instruct our Deputies to look once again into their wording.

Mr. Bevin: Is the two-thirds agreed?

M. Molotov: Yes.

Mr. Byrnes: It is agreed that these two paragraphs go to the Deputies.

M. Molotov: Only paragraph D of the Rumanian Treaty.

Mr. Byrnes: On the question of reparations, can’t we agree that of that 125 the $5 million is paid to Albania and 120 to Yugoslavia.

M. Molotov: It is inconvenient to violate the principle of quality [equality] between Yugoslavia and Greece.

Mr. Byrnes: It is hard to comply with the principle of equality and with the statement that Yugoslavia should not be given more than it wishes. I am not going to discuss it further. I have stated with all the emphasis I could my reluctance to violate a recommendation of the Conference in increasing the amount to be paid by Italy by $35 million. I don’t see how we could do it. I want to ask my colleagues for their interpretation of Article 64⁹⁴ and see if it agreed with mine, that is 64C. It has reference to the sources of reparations. The provisions under C are “all other categories of capital goods or services excluding Italian assets”. Under that provision, as I interpret it, Italy is free to arrange with Yugoslavia that capital goods of Italy in the ceded territory be included in the sources of reparations. The following paragraph provides that quantities and types of goods chosen should be the subject of agreement between the Italian Government and the government entitled to receive reparation. If in the ceded territory there is Italian property, even of private citizens, and Yugoslavia desires to get that property, Italy and Yugoslavia would negotiate as to the transfer of that property and the amount to be credited on the reparations account.

M. Couve de Murville: I should like to see this more clearly, and therefore I want to make use of an example. An Italian lives on ceded territory and moves to Italy. He possesses a house and this house could be turned over to the Yugoslav Government, it being understood that the Italian Government will compensate the owner in Italy.

Mr. Byrnes: That is a very good illustration of what I have in mind as the proper interpretation of the provision now in the text. That would be a matter for negotiation between Yugoslavia and Italy.

M. Molotov: It is a new question. I ask that no new questions be raised.

Mr. Byrnes: It is not a new question. It is language we have agreed to in the Treaty, and an interpretation would influence my decision on the question of reparations.

M. Molotov: Let us keep the agreed wording. That is enough.

Mr. Byrnes: I am not proposing to amend the wording. I am asking for an interpretation. Unless we know what is meant, we can’t interpret it to other people. I submit this illustration that was presented by the French Delegation. It presents the question very clearly. Here is a man who exercises the right we give him to opt for return to Italy. He owns property. It is his property. In such case, we all agree that no one should take his property from him without reimbursement. In such case, would it be our interpretation that Italy and Yugoslavia should agree that that property be turned over to Yugoslavia and a value set on it by the Four Ambassadors if necessary and credited on to the reparations to be paid to Yugoslavia, and Italy then must reimburse its citizen?

M. Molotov: I think if we delve into the consideration of this question, then a number of other questions pertaining to the interpretation of other paragraphs may arise and that may lead us too far.

Mr. Byrnes: Does the French Delegation agree to this proposal of two-thirds and this division of the money?

(The French Delegate assented, as did the U.K. Delegate.)

I know it is the judgment of the Soviet Delegation, but I don’t hesitate to say that I do not like it. I regret exceedingly raising by $35 million the amount to be paid by Italy and lowering Bulgaria by $50 million, but I will not hold out because of my feeling on the matter.

M. Molotov: The recommendation of the Conference regarding reparations from Bulgaria does not specify the time limit in Article 20.⁹⁵ By simple majority the time is fixed at six years. Could we accept the same period as that laid down in the case of other Balkan countries, namely, eight years for Hungary and Rumania?

Mr. Bevin: The same rule?

M. Molotov: The same rule.

Mr. Bevin: I have no objection. The governments can agree after the first two years.

Mr. Byrnes: Of course there is a difference. In the other cases it is $300 million, and here it is $70 million. If Italy has got eight, I will agree.

M. Molotov: Seven years and two years moratorium—can that be accepted?

Mr. Byrnes: That gives you one more year than you asked for. Do you agree to eight?

Mr. Bevin: Seven.

Mr. Molotov: Seven years and two years moratorium.

Mr. Bevin: With the right of the governments to make an agreement in that two years? Does that apply to Albania too?

M. Molotov: Yes.

Mr. Byrnes: It is included in the Italian terms, whatever the terms, are for Italy.

M. Molotov: It is necessary in this connection to look into the wording of Article 20, B and C, and apply the same rules as those we apply in the case of Italy. I suggest that we bring the terms of the payment of reparations by Bulgaria into line with the terms of payment of reparations by Italy and accordingly Article 20 is to be corrected.

Mr. Bevin: I don’t think the conditions in the two countries are comparable. The basis for the calculation of the settlement in Yugoslavia would be United States dollars at gold parity—$35 for one ounce of gold, but the method in Bulgaria is different, and therefore you can’t take the same basis for Bulgaria as for Italy. I shouldn’t like to commit myself, but I don’t mind if the experts look at it. I am told the two systems are entirely different in the method of calculation.

M. Molotov: The only thing I am anxious to be clear on is that we agree to apply the same terms for payment by Bulgaria as upon the other Balkan countries, Hungary or Rumania, or those imposed on Italy, but we should not provide for any special terms of payment by Bulgaria.

Mr. Byrnes: I agree. This provision in the Italian Treaty about deliveries from current production during a two-year period—it would be better to say eight years as you suggest.

M. Molotov: As you like. Then the same terms would be applied as those that would apply in the case of Hungary or Rumania.

Mr. Byrnes: Is that agreeable?

M. Couve de Murville: Yes.

Mr. Bevin: I am sorry. I don’t want to treat Bulgaria worse than the others, but I am told the two systems do not work alike. I am told that this is especially drafted because of circumstances and because of the methods of exchange.

Mr. Byrnes: May I re-state this case. As a result of the statement that the language as to Bulgaria was different there was a discussion with the Soviet Delegation and the United States Delegation engaging in it. They thought it would be better not to follow the Italian language, but on the contrary it would be better to stick to the language provided for Bulgaria and provide the same time as in the Rumanian and Hungarian treaties which would be eight years instead of six.

M. Molotov: No. The Soviet Union receives reparations from Rumania and Italy, so when I suggest that the same terms be applied to Bulgaria as those applied to Rumania or to Italy, I am not suggesting any thing unacceptable to the Soviet Union, and therefore the recommendations of the conference which were not considered by the Soviet Delegation should not provide for any special terms of payment of reparations by Bulgaria. Therefore we suggest that we adhere to one rule, either the one used for Rumania or the one for Italy, whichever is best, but one on which we have already agreed—the eight years for Rumania or the seven years for Italy, and the same terms as in the case of reparations to be paid by Italy. If we have reached agreement to apply the Rumanian or Italian rule, I have no objection to instructing the Deputies to look into this matter. I think we will do the right thing if we agree on the terms of the payment of reparations to Greece, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia and Albania on the pattern either of those applied in the case of Rumania or those applied in the case of Italy.

Mr. Bevin: My difficulty is this. There are two or more dollar rates in Bulgaria and by manipulation Greece may get nothing at all or only one-half of what we have assigned to her. Therefore, I would like to have my experts advise me.

M. Molotov: Should any disputes arise when we have reached agreement, in the last resort these disputes will be heard by an arbitrator appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations Organization.

Mr. Byrnes: There is a difference in the language in the Rumanian and Bulgarian provisions. I notice that in the case of Bulgaria they particularly cite agricultural produce and livestock and coal and other products of the economy as well as locomotives and railway material.

M. Molotov: Let us charge the experts with looking into this matter.

(Agreed.)

When shall we hear the naval experts regarding the Italian Navy? Let us hear them tomorrow.

Mr. Byrnes: We will ask them to report to us tomorrow afternoon. How about the Drafting Committee?

Mr. Bevin: There is a fourth Economic Report ready I am told.

M. Molotov: We have not got the Russian text as yet.

Mr. Byrnes: Then we will pass over these points until tomorrow. I would like to ask my colleagues what their thinking is with reference to the signing of the Treaty, assuming we are justified in assuming that the important questions have been decided. I have been thinking that we ought to ask the Secretariat or maybe these remarkable Deputies who have handled all the other problems to consider and to put to us whether the Treaties when signed should be—if signed before we leave here—if the United Nations is in session long enough to have kept you gentlemen here that would be very fine—it would solve a lot of problems. If that is not possible, then whether it should be sent by courier to the several capitals for signature?

M. Couve de Murville: Mr. Chairman, I think there will be quite a lot of final drafting to do and the comparison between the texts, the Russian and English and French languages, but a few small drafting changes will have to be made. I wonder whether we could not charge the Deputies with considering the questions which are still outstanding tomorrow and seeing what is still to be done and what the program of work is to be, and having seen the report on the matter we could take a decision tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Byrnes: All right. That is my first suggestion. It was that the Deputies briefly should give some study to it, and I realize that it will take some time, printing and comparing the texts. Therefore, I shall now ask the Deputies to give consideration to it and I shall ask them to have in mind that in making the recommendation that it is important that they should be signed at the earliest possible time. In case, for instance, of the United States, we have to submit treaties to the Senate for ratification. It meets the first of January, and we would like to be able to present the Treaty at the earliest possible date. Then by tomorrow afternoon the Deputies may give us some information in view of the agreement arrived at.

Unless someone has something else to offer, I move that we adjourn to the next room.

Just one moment.

Mr. Bevin: I should like to ask the indulgence of my colleagues about future meetings. I want to be away Saturday⁹⁶ afternoon. I can be here on Monday, or I can meet on any subject on Saturday morning.

Mr. Byrnes: It would be entirely agreeable to me to meet Saturday morning instead of Saturday afternoon, if it is convenient to others.

M. Molotov: I think this can be done.

Mr. Byrnes: Then we adjourn until tomorrow at 4:00. The Deputies at 11:00 a.m.

(The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.)

70. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
71. At their 128th Meeting, December 5, 1946, 11 a.m., the Deputies considered in detail an unnumbered document, dated December 3, 1946, submitted by the Trieste Sub-Committee, containing the text of a Draft Permanent Statute for the Free Territory of Trieste. This draft text is not printed. A substantial portion of it was adopted by the Deputies. As finally adopted by the Council, the Permanent Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste was included as Annex VI of the Treaty of Peace with Italy. Unagreed portions of the unnumbered draft Statute of December 3 are indicated in footnotes below.
72. The Report under reference has not been found.
73. The opening phrase of article 6 of the unnumbered draft Statute of December 3 read as follows: “The Government of the Free Territory shall comprise a Governor, a Council of Government …” The remainder was identical with article 9 of the approved Permanent Statute, as this article was subsequently renumbered.
74. Article 6 was renumbered as article 9 in subsequent drafts of the Permanent Statute.

75. In the unnumbered draft Statute of December 3, article 25 read as follows:

    “The power of pardon and reprieve shall vest in and be exercised by the Governor.…”

    Article 25 was renumbered as article 23 in subsequent drafts of the Permanent Statute.

76. Article 26 was renumbered as article 24 in all subsequent drafts of the Permanent Statute.
77. Article 31 was renumbered as article 33 in subsequent drafts of the Permanent Statute, and the paragraphs a, b, and c thereunder were redesignated 1, 2, and 3.

78. The last sentence of paragraph c, article 31 of the unnumbered draft Statute of December 3, read as follows:

    “The Free Territory, including the Free Port of Trieste, shall not register any ships or other vessels under the flag of any state which has, or which shall acquire in the future, a maritime port or ports of its own.”

79. Article 31, paragraph b, of the unnumbered draft Statute of December 3 read as follows:

    “(b) The Free Territory shall open special maritime registers for Czechoslovak, Austrian, Swiss or Hungarian ships and vessels upon request of any one of these Governments. Vessels entered in these registers shall fly the flags of their respective countries.”

80. Article 33 was renumbered as article 6 in subsequent drafts of the Permanent Statute, and the paragraphs A.1, A.2, A.3, and B thereunder were redesignated paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

81. Article 33, paragraph A.2, first sentence of the unnumbered draft Statute of December 3, read as follows:

    “2. The Government of the Free Territory shall, however, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty provide that the persons referred to in paragraph 1 over the age of eighteen years (or married persons whether under or over that age) whose customary language is Italian shall be entitled to opt for Italian citizenship within a period of one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty.”

82. Article 34 was renumbered as article 7 in subsequent drafts of the Permanent Statute.
83. Article 38 of the unnumbered draft Statute of December 3 is identical with article 38 finally adopted in the Permanent Statute.
84. Not printed; in it the Legal and Drafting Committee reported that it had met on December 4, 1946, to consider article 78 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy in the light of the Council’s discussions on December 2 regarding article 77 bis. The Committee had been unable to reach agreement upon a text (CFM Documents, Lot M–88, Box 2079, CFM Documents).
85. In the Treaty of Peace with Italy, this article was renumbered as article 89.
86. Under reference here are article 14 of the Rumanian, article 12 of the Bulgarian, article 13 of the Hungarian, and article 16 of the Finnish draft treaties.
87. The text of the proposal under reference is given in footnote 71, p. 1340.
88. The earlier drafts of the resolution proposed by the Soviet Delegation regarding a conference to be convened for preparing a new Danube Convention has not been found. For text of this resolution, as adopted by the Deputies and the Council itself on December 6, see Annex 5, p. 1446.
89. i.e., the proposal referred to in footnote 87, above.
90. i.e., the resolution regarding the convening of a Danube conference, referred to in footnote 88, above.
91. The Soviet proposal referred to here, as amended by the United Kingdom Delegation, is included in the Record of Decisions of this meeting of the Council, item V, infra. In the draft Rumanian treaty, this was article 30 bis, and in the final Treaty of Peace with Rumania, this became article 33.
92. For the provision under reference, article 68, paragraph 4(d), as recommended by the Paris Peace Conference, see vol. iv, p. 904.
93. Article 24 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, as recommended by the Paris Peace Conference, vol. iv, p. 925.
94. The article on reparations in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy as recommended by the Peace Conference, ibid., p. 902.
95. Article 20 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Bulgaria (vol. iv, p. 98) dealt with reparations. The equivalent articles in the Draft Peace Treaties with Rumania and Hungary were articles 22 and 21 (ibid., pp. 69 and 105).
96. December 7.