CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 33
The record of the 5th meeting was approved. There then followed an hour’s discussion regarding the record of the 4th meeting, which did not tally with the understanding of several delegations, particularly the Australian. The U.S.S.R. Delegate took the point of view that since the preamble had already been approved, the Australian amendment [C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.B.1] noted in paragraph 3 of the 4th meeting’s record of decisions could not at a later date be inserted in the preamble. The Chairman proposed that any further debate on this matter be postponed until the pertinent article was under discussion. Since the U.S.S.R. Delegate could not agree, the Australian Delegate, seconded by the U.K. Delegate, proposed that a vote be taken on the record of decisions of the 4th meeting as it now stood. Seven votes were cast in favor of accepting the record; the Czechoslovak and French Delegations abstained; and the Ukrainian, U.S.S.R., Yugoslav and Byelorussian Delegations voted against acceptance. The record was therefore adopted.
The Chairman then suggested that any further discussion of the frontier between Hungary and Rumania (Article 1, para 2) was primarily a matter for the Rumanian Commission. He said it was that Commission which had initiated the action to hear the Hungarian and [Page 363] Rumanian Delegations. Moreover, the Hungarian Commission had already approved Article 1, paragraph 2. He would inform the Hungarian Commission of any decisions taken in the Rumanian Commission in this respect. This procedure was approved.
The Chairman then read a letter from the Hungarian Delegation requesting to be heard on all amendments to political and territorial clauses. The Commission was of the opinion that it would decide on what points the Hungarian Delegation should be heard, and it then approved a Czechoslovak proposal that the Hungarians table their views at this time only on the second Czech amendment to Article 1, paragraph 4 (the territorial claim) [C.P. (Gen.)Doc.1.Q.3].
Mr. Clementis (Czechoslovakia) then presented his first amendment to paragraph 4 (C.P.(Gen)Doc. 1.Q.2) to add the words “with all the consequences ensuing therefrom” to the draft article declaring the Vienna award null and void. He argued that it was necessary to express specifically in the treaty the principle that the material consequences of this award be nullified, since it was impractical to insert all the details involved. In fact, these details were mostly connected with Article 22, which was of an economic character and would not be considered by this Commission. Unless this clause was incorporated in the treaty, the Hungarians would never willingly approach the Czechs with a view to negotiating a settlement.
Both the Byelorussian and Yugoslav Delegations supported the Czech proposal. The French Delegate pointed out that there might be certain technical consequences to this amendment that only legal authorities could adjudicate. He recommended that discussion either be postponed or that the question be referred to the Legal and Drafting Commission. The Commission agreed to accept the French proposal to defer discussion, until such time as the legal experts of each delegation would formulate an opinion.
The Commission then proceeded to examine Article 2, which had been carried over from the previous meeting. The Chairman read a letter from the Hungarian Delegation stating that it had no objection to the amendment proposed by the Yugoslavs (cf. Journal No. 29) [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.U.30] but pointing out that the parallel article in the Rumanian treaty should also be amended in the same way to afford protection for the Hungarian minority. The Ukrainian Delegation supported the Yugoslav proposal on the grounds that the Hungarians had no objection the amendment. General Smith (U.S.) pointed out that the Ukrainian Delegation had neglected to mention the statement made by the Hungarians to the effect that the Yugoslav amendment was acceptable but that it also should be incorporated in other treaties. He understood that the pertinent article in the Rumanian Commission had already been approved without such an [Page 364] amendment and assumed that it could not now be reopened. Furthermore the Yugoslav amendment in reality accentuated the minority problem. In any case, the present language of Article 2 gave ample protection to all minorities. Viscount Hood (U.K.) agreed with General Smith, and stated that the drafters of the Treaty had not attempted to cover every eventuality. Such an amendment was only justified if the Hungarian Government had evidenced an intention of oppressing the Yugoslav minority. This was not the case. Moreover, another Yugoslav amendment designed to reduce the minority in Hungary by an exchange of populations would be inconsistent.
The Yugoslav Delegation, after hearing the statement of the Hungarian Delegation expressed in its letter, was satisfied that Yugoslavia had obtained its objective. The Delegate was constrained to point out that the assimilation of minorities was exceedingly difficult in present-day Europe, and any forced assimilation would cause new frictions and disputes. In order to expedite the Commission’s work he was willing to withdraw the amendment.