CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 27
The decisions of the previous meetings were adopted. The Czechoslovak Delegation stated that because it was closely concerned with certain articles of the draft treaty and in order to retain complete impartiality in the discussion thereof, it wished to withdraw its position on the Commission as rapporteur. The Delegate of Great Britian (Viscount Hood) then proposed the election of Ukraine as rapporteur, and there being no objections the Ukrainian Delegation was elected unanimously.
The Chairman (M. Stankovic, Yugoslavia), opened the discussion on the Australian amendment to the Preamble [C. P. (Gen.) Doc. 1. B. 1] by proposing that the Commission adopt the same procedure in its discussion as in the Italian and Rumanian Commissions. The change in the position of two sentences in the fourth paragraph as proposed by Australia was adopted. The Yugoslav Delegation then proposed to amend the Australian proposal which was to insert the phrase “conforming to the principles of justice” by adding certain other words. The U.S. Delegate felt it desirable that the amendments of the Australian Delegation, which had already been accepted in other committees, should conform in all the treaty preambles. The Czech Delegation then moved that both the Australian and Yugoslav [Page 303] amendments be withdrawn, to which the Yugoslav Delegation could not agree. In a show of hands the Yugoslav amendment was rejected and the Australian amendment was then adopted unanimously with the Czech and Ukrainian Delegations abstaining. The third part of the Australian amendment, which was a motion to postpone discussion of the human rights clauses until the Commission came to Articles 2 and 3 of the draft Treaty, was accepted unanimously. The Australian Delegation also proposed to refer the last sentence of the Preamble, which had slight differences only in the drafting, to the Legal and Drafting Committee. The Preamble was then adopted unanimously by roll call, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia abstaining.
The Chairman then proceeded to open the discussion on the territorial clauses (Article 1) stating that two amendments by Czechoslovakia on point 4 [C. P. (Gen.) Docs. 1. Q. 2 and 3] had been submitted as well as a statement by the Hungarian Delegation76 and a proposal to form a territorial commission by the Australian Delegation. The Australian Delegation asked that discussion on its amendment be deferred and reserved the right to put it forward if the occasion arose.
The frontier between Hungary and Yugoslavia (Article 1, point 1) as proposed in the draft treaty was then accepted by the Commission and considered adopted.
The Chairman stated that in regards to the frontier between Rumania and Hungary (Article 1, point 2) written observations had been submitted by Hungary.77 The Chairman said that he and the Chairman of the Rumanian Commission had met to discuss procedure on this question and they now suggested that if any delegation “supported” the Hungarian suggestion and desired to hear the Hungarian case, a joint session of the two Commissions would be held. He pointed out that in this case both Hungary and Rumania would be heard. The Canadian Delegation argued that it was not necessary to have a delegation support the Hungarian statement and pointed to the precedent of the Italian Commission where Italy was permitted to state its case orally without necessarily having the support of any member of the Commission. The Chairman then took the position that in the Hungarian Commission it had been decided in the other instance when Hungary had a suggestion regarding the Preamble that a delegation would have to sponsor it as a motion. The Canadian Delegation then moved that an opportunity be given to hear the Hungarians if they desired to be heard. The U.S.S.R. Delegate could not agree to the analogy previously made in the Italian Commission since one party [Page 304] in that case was not an enemy state and two enemy states were involved here. He asked the Canadian Delegation if it wished to hear the general remarks of the Hungarian Delegation or wished to confine them to Article 1, point 2 (Transylvania). The U.S. Delegate was not particularly concerned regarding the claims of two enemy states per se,78 but was interested to know if any member of the Commission wanted to hear any discussion of the frontier question between Hungary and Rumania. Since two colleagues had already indicated they did wish to hear the Hungarians, he supported the Canadian proposal. France’s delegate asked if the Hungarians had actually requested to be heard, and asked the Chairman to find out. The Chairman then stated that it was the Commission which should be concerned with hearing an enemy state. Hungary’s desire to be heard was secondary to that of a member to hear Hungary. He had received a letter from the Hungarians requesting a hearing on point 4, but no mention had been made of point 2 of Article 1. He understood the Canadian proposal was that Hungary could be heard on point 2 and wanted to know specifically if Canada would “second” the Hungarian statement on Article 1, point 2. The Canadian Delegation then rose to state that it had in mind a hearing on point 4 and, therefore, withdrew its motion.
The Chairman stated that since there was no desire on the part of any member to hear the Hungarians on point 2 and since no amendment had been offered, it was to be considered adopted.
Since there were no amendments to Article 1, point 3 (frontier between Hungary and the U.S.S.R.) it also was considered by the Chairman adopted.
In connection with point 4 of Article 1, the Chairman said there had been submitted two amendments by Czechoslovakia and a statement by Hungary. It was agreed that Hungary should be given until August 30 to present a written statement regarding the Czechoslovak territorial claim on Hungary and that at that time Hungary might be heard orally if the Commission so decided. However, the next meeting of the Commission would be held on Friday, August 30 and it would instead start examination of Article 2, delaying discussion on point 4 of Article 1 until the members had had an opportunity to study the Hungarian document.
- The reference is presumably to C.P.(H/P) Doc. 4, which, exclusive of its annexes, is identical with the observations on article 1 contained in C.P.(Gen) Doc. 5. August 26, vol. iv, p. 249.↩
- See footnote above.↩
A memorandum by John C. Campbell, “U.S. Position on Transylvania,” August 4, included the following:
↩“In considering its position on the question of Transylvania, which involves two enemy states and therefore presumably should be settled on its merits, the United States has desired to see a solution which would represent a maximum contribution to stability and to future good relations between Rumania and Hungary. At the same time we have felt that, in the absence of a clear-cut case for revision of the present frontier as a means of achieving those aims, it would not be desirable to take a strong stand, in opposition to the Soviet Union and Great Britain, in favor of changing that frontier.” (Moscow Embassy Files)