CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 28
The Commission heard replies by M. Argyropoulos (Greece) and Mr. Wilgress (Canada) to certain statements by M. Molotov on their positions on the (now withdrawn) Australian amendment to Article 22 of the Rumanian Treaty and began its consideration of the South African amendment to this article [C. P. (Gen.) Doc. 1. S. 2]. Mr. Parminter (South Africa) explained that the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that UN nationals should not be penalized for Rumania’s obligation to pay reparation, as was in fact happening, notably in the case of UN oil companies which were receiving from the Rumanian Government less than one-third of the f.o.b. Haifa prices for oil products although the Rumanian Government received a good credit on its reparation account for oil deliveries to the U.S.S.R. The amendment was in conformity with the principle already [Page 309] accepted by the CFM in Article 64 of the Italian treaty and was in a sense an extension of the principle of fair compensation incorporated in draft Article 29 of the Rumanian treaty. M. Tarasenko (Ukraine) opposed the amendment on the grounds that it would grant a specially privileged position to foreign interests and that, in any case, it was not possible to maintain that Rumanian prices were less fair than a vague and indefinable world price. M. Rasovitch (Yugoslavia) also opposed the amendment on the ground that it would discriminate against Rumanian nationals in favor of foreign interests. Mr. Gregory (UK) supported the amendment and outlined at some length the problems faced by UN oil companies in Rumania.
Mr. Thorp (USA) said that the question before the Commission related to the simple and basic principle, which had been accepted at Potsdam, reaffirmed in Article 64 of the Italian treaty, and was now clearly stated in the South African amendment, that reparation should not be paid by United Nations and their nationals. To vote against the amendment would be to vote that Rumania could pay unfair prices and, as Rumanian oil deliveries were credited to the reparation account at fair prices, that UN nationals should pay reparation. He was surprised, therefore, to hear any challenge to this amendment and thought that if the Commission focussed its attention on the fundamental principle involved, as to which there could be no question, the amendment would find general support. M. Gusev (USSR) thought that the amendment supplemented the Australian amendment and would create new difficulties and delays in the payment of reparation. The insertion of a requirement on prices in the treaty would be an unwarranted invasion of Rumanian sovereignty. Furthermore, the principle involved was that established in Article 30(c), which provided that UN nationals engaging in business activity in Rumania should receive national and most-favored nation treatment. The amendment constituted an unjustifiable exception to this basic principle and established a regime of special privileges for UN nationals in Rumania. For these reasons the Soviet Delegation found the amendment unacceptable.