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

740.00119 Council/4–1346

The British Embassy to the Department of State

Aide-Mémoire

Mr. Bevin notes that the meeting in Paris on April 25th is described by Mr. Byrnes as a Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the states which are concerned with the preparation of the peace treaties to be submitted to the Paris Peace Conference. The main topics will, therefore, be the questions arising on the peace treaties which the Deputies have not been able to resolve. Mr. Bevin presumes that the Foreign Ministers will also discuss the arrangements for the Peace Conference itself.

2. It is possible that as the meeting is one of the Council of Foreign Ministers the Russians will, in discussing the different treaties, wish to follow the 4:3:2 formula set out in paragraph 1 of the Moscow Agreement of December 1945. As, however, the meeting is being held in Paris, Mr. Bevin feels that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to exclude the French Foreign Minister from any of the sessions. Mr. Bevin hopes, therefore, that Mr. Byrnes will agree with his opinion that all four Foreign Ministers should be present throughout the meeting.

3. Whilst China can justifiably be excluded from the discussions of the peace treaties, in whose preparation the Chinese Deputy has taken no part, consideration should perhaps be given to inviting a representative of the Chinese Government to attend the meeting when the arrangements for the Peace Conference are being discussed. Alternatively, the Chinese Government should at least be informed of any conclusions reached on this subject and their concurrence obtained before any results are published.

4. Mr. Bevin presumes that the meeting will start with the Italian Treaty and a discussion of the major outstanding questions, with the object of arriving at an agreement of principle. In certain cases it might then be desirable to instruct the Deputy Foreign Ministers to draft treaty articles forthwith for the approval of the Foreign Ministers before they disperse.

5. Judging from the present state of the Deputies’ work, the principal questions upon which no agreement has been reached or which have not yet been discussed, appear to Mr. Bevin to be:—

(A) On the Italian Treaty,

(i) Italo-Yugoslav frontier and the future of Trieste.

(ii) The South Tyrol.

(iii) Franco-Italian Frontier.

(iv) Dodecanese.

(v) The future of the Italian Colonies. (It will be difficult for Mr. Bevin to discuss this until he has been able to consult the Dominion Prime Ministers who may not all be in London until the very end of April).

(vi) The disposal of the Italian Navy.

(vii) The establishment of some allied machinery to verify the execution of naval, military and air clauses. (This arises on Balkan Treaties as well).

(viii) Reparation.

(ix) Restitution of loot.

(xi) Renunciation of claims by Italy.

(B) On the Balkan Treaties,

(i) Satisfactory economic and financial provisions, especially for the treatment of United Nations property, and reparation by Bulgaria.

(ii) The Danube.

(iii) Limitation of armed forces.

(iv) Precise definition of frontiers.

6. The above list does not pretend to be exhaustive, but Mr. Bevin feels that it might be useful if Mr. Byrnes and he could agree upon a list which could serve as an agenda. This might then be communicated to the French and Russians whilst reserving the right to raise additional points.

7. As regards the arrangements for the Peace Conference, we can presumably take as basis the proposals which the French Deputy put forward at Lancaster House. As regards the date, May 1st now seems to Mr. Bevin to be quite out of the question, but an alternative elate can probably best be left for discussion at the Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Paris.

8. Mr. Bevin has no doubt that the French will wish to discuss German questions, and for his part, he would welcome this though, as Mr. Bevin has said before, off the record discussion might be more fruitful at this stage than formal discussion at the Council itself.

9. There is also the question of publicity. After the open proceedings of the Security Council the press and public may expect a similar procedure at the Council of Foreign Ministers. In Mr. Bevin’s view, this is clearly out of the question as an endeavour must be made to maintain the confidential character of the discussions. Mr. Bevin wonders, therefore, whether Mr. Byrnes would be able to take the opportunity, for instance by a statement at one of his press conferences, to remove any idea that proceedings at the Foreign Ministers’ Meeting will be conducted in public. Mr. Bevin would like to know whether Mr. Byrnes would also favour a self-denying ordinance by the four Foreign Ministers to abstain from public press conferences during the Paris Meeting.

10. Mr. Bevin would greatly welcome Mr. Byrnes’ views on the above questions.

Washington , April 13, 1946.