Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 3, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 32

The Commission agreed to hear the statements of the countries submitting claims for reparation from Italy under Article 64B beginning Thursday, in the following order (which was determined by lot); Greece, Albania, Poland, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Brazil, U.K., Ethopia, Netherlands, Norway, France, and Egypt. The Commission then considered the Brazilian proposal to insert in Article 64A, para. 4, the words “if necessary”, so that the paragraph would read: “The U.S.S.R. shall, if necessary, furnish to Italy on commercial terms materials …” The Brazilian representative said that the intention was to make a clearer draft, which would ensure that Italy could secure raw materials from any country and encourage freedom of trade. The Brazilian amendment was opposed by the representatives of the U.S.S.R. and France, the latter saying that it might cause difficulties and that the paragraph as drafted did not mean that the raw materials must originate in the U.S.S.R. The amendment was supported by the representatives of Australia, South Africa, and Canada on the ground that the paragraph as drafted might have a restrictive effect on Italy’s ability to secure raw materials from sources other than the U.S.S.R. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) emphasized that the point of para. 4 was that it obligated the Soviet Union to furnish Italy with the necessary raw materials in order to secure reparation from current production. Only in this way could Italy secure the necessary raw materials without a burden being placed on its balance of payments. He also thought that the amendment might create difficult problems of interpretation. The representative of the U.K. also opposed the amendment. The representative of South Africa took this occasion to speak of the difficulties in amending any CFM agreed draft which were imposed by the procedure followed by the Commission. The four drafting Powers were bound to support the agreed clauses and did not usually explain the considerations which had led to their particular draft. This made it difficult to draft amendments which would meet their views and also the difficulties perceived in any article by the other members of the Commission. M. Vyshinsky again defended the draft and agreed that the clause as drafted obligated the Soviet Union to provide the raw materials necessary for reparation deliveries out of current production. After the Brazilian representative had exercised his right of final reply, the amendment was defeated on a roll-call vote by 15 to 4, with Greece abstaining, and Australia, Brazil, Canada, and South Africa supporting. As no one moved the Italian amendment to paragraph 5,²³ the Commission did not consider this amendment, although the French representative thought that the paragraph as drafted met the points raised in the Italian memorandum. The Commission then approved paragraph 5. After a brief explanation by M. Vyshinsky, the Commission approved the U.S.S.R. amendment providing that the dollar at its gold parity on July 1, 1946 should be the basis of calculating the reparation settlement.²⁴ The Commission then approved Article 64A as a whole.

23. For the Italian position on article 64 contained in “Observations on the Draft Peace Treaty With Italy by the Italian Government,” see vol. iv, p. 117.
24. At their 108th Meeting, August 31, the Deputies of the Council of Foreign Ministers agreed to support the Soviet amendment (CFM Files: United States Delegation Minutes of the proceedings of the Deputies).