CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

USDel (PC) (Journal) 34

The Commission considered Article 2 dealing with the Hungarian-Rumanian frontier. Mr. Officer (Australia) referred to the statements made by the Hungarian and Rumanian Delegations40 and suggested that before the Commission came to a decision it hear from the representative of one of the states responsible for drafting the article so that the Commission would know the reasoning which guided the Council. Mr. Harriman (U.S.) said that he considered the Australian request legitimate and reasonable. He said that the United States had not been a strong supporter of the proposed text but wished to make it clear that he would vote for it since it had been [Page 376] agreed by the Council. He said that during the discussions in the Council the United States Delegation had made certain proposals for a study of possible modification of the frontier which might, by reducing the number of persons under alien rule, contribute to stability and to mutual cooperation between Hungary and Rumania. The other members of the Council of Foreign Ministers had not shared this view and, in view of the desirability of reaching unanimous agreement, the U.S. had not insisted on its position. Mr. Harriman reiterated his statement that he would vote for Article 2 as drafted but wished to take the occasion to say that, in view of the differences on various subjects evident in the statements of the Hungarian and Rumanian representatives, the United States hoped that progress might be made through direct negotiations between them toward a mutually satisfactory settlement of the outstanding questions. M. Bogomolov (USSR) said that the Australian Delegation had made no proposal on the substance of the question and therefore he saw no necessity to comment. Mr. Jebb (U.K.) said that in the Council no one Member had been sufficiently convinced of the justice of the Hungarian claim to insist that some satisfaction be given to it. He thought that it had been generally felt in the Council that Transylvania should remain as a unit within Rumania as there were strong economic reasons against cutting off any part of it. He hoped that in time the minority problem in Transylvania would become less acute, particularly if the Rumanian legislation on this subject were fully carried out. General Catroux (France) favored the adoption of Article 2 as the best solution in view of the complex ethnic and economic factors involved and the desirability of annulling the Vienna Award.

Mr. Officer said that Australia wanted the decision to be just. This frontier had been a sore spot in Europe for years and the Conference should seek the best possible solution. He proposed that Article 2 be adopted with a rider in the form of a recommendation that the Council of Foreign Ministers, before putting it into the final Treaty, make a further effort to secure, in cooperation with the two interested parties, an adjustment by which some additional Hungarian centers might be incorporated in Hungary. M. Bogomolov opposed the Australian proposal on the grounds that Article 2 as drafted, annulling completely the Vienna Award, was the proper solution, and that the Council needed no further advice on it. The Ukrainian Delegation supported M. Bogomolov. Mr. Officer said that he did not propose any change in the text and would vote for the Article as drafted subject to the Commission placing in the Record the recommendation to the Council which he had suggested. He wished to have a vote first on this recommendation. The Chair ruled that the Commission must vote first on the text of Article 2. It was adopted by 10 votes with 2 [Page 377] abstentions (Australia and South Africa). Mr. Officer then said that he would have voted for the Article if he had had the opportunity before the vote to propose and secure a vote on his draft resolution referred to above. He wished his statement incorporated in the Record of the meeting as an explanation of the Australian abstention. The Chairman agreed that it should be so inserted.

Consideration of the U.K. amendment in the form of an additional paragraph to Article 3 was deferred until the next meeting.

The Commission then adopted Article 6 unanimously. The amendment of the Australian Delegation (CP(Rou/P) Doc. 7)41 was reserved pending a decision on the Australian amendment concerning a Treaty Executive Council. The Commission then agreed to invite the Rumanian Delegation to present its views on Articles 7, 8, and 10

  1. The statements under reference were delivered at the joint meetings of the Political and Territorial Commissions for Rumania and Hungary, August 31 and September 2; for the United States Delegation Journal accounts of those meetings, see pp. 330 and 339, respectively.
  2. For text, see footnote 51, p. 394.