CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 34
The representatives of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine spoke in opposition to the United States proposal in para. 4, Article 24, for full compensation for damage or loss to United Nations property in Rumania. The representatives of Canada and the U.K. spoke in support of the American proposal. M. Gerashchenko (USSR) argued for partial rather than full compensation on the following grounds: (1) the same principle adopted for reparation in Article 2 should be applied to compensation; (2) it was unfair that people whose property in a United Nation was destroyed by enemy action should get only partial payment while persons in ex-enemy countries should get full payment for their losses and damages. He also argued that the United Nations’ failure to specify the actual amount of damages left Rumania open to exorbitant claims which [Page 374] might harm her economic recovery; that payment in local currency would be as much a burden on the Rumanian economy as reparation; and that it was unfair to claim damages for events occurring after Rumania joined the Allied war effort. The Yugoslavian representative spoke along the same lines as the Soviet, pointing out that the people in invaded territory would gain little under Article 22 and little also under Article 23 because of the difficulty of identifying looted property. M. Chijov (Byelorussia) spoke in similar vein. Mr. Wilgress (Canada) spoke in favor of the American proposal. The investments made by United Nations nationals in Rumania had been made in good faith and without reference to Rumania’s war-making policy. As Mr. Thorp had pointed out, reparation and compensation payments were two different problems: the former required transfers of assets from Rumania; the latter, involving payments in local currency, meant simply transfers of property within Rumania and would result in an ultimate gain to the Rumanian economy through the operation of reconstructed industries. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) associated himself with the Canadian view, pointing out that full reparation payments in the case of Rumania were not possible because they involved an undue foreign exchange burden whereas compensation was purely an internal budgetary problem which could be handled within Rumania’s economic capacity. The Ukrainian representative then spoke and followed the Soviet line of argument in favor of partial compensation.