CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 36
The Rumanian Delegation expressed its views on Articles 7, 8, and 10 of the Draft Treaty. In connection with Article 7 the Rumanian representative raised several questions outstanding between Rumania and Hungary. He requested that the Conference take them into consideration in connection with the Peace Treaty with Hungary and said that Rumania did not ask consideration of the proposal, which it had made in its written memorandum, for the conclusion of a separate protocol ending the state of war between Rumania and Hungary. Mr. Harriman (U.S.) stated that he supported Articles 7 and 8 as [Page 394] drafted, but that the United States Delegation would also welcome the conclusion of a protocol or other bilateral agreements between Rumania and Hungary which would tend to improve their relations and settle outstanding questions such as those raised by the Rumanian Delegation in connection with Article 7. He said that the United States Delegation would favor a resolution by the Conference to this effect and suggested that the Commission in its report to the Conference recommend such a resolution. M. Lysicky (Czechoslovakia) saw no reason to discuss Mr. Harriman’s statement since the Rumanians had withdrawn their proposal connected with Article 8. The United States and Czechoslovak Delegations asked that their respective statements be annexed to the Record of the meeting. Articles 7 and 8 were then adopted unanimously.
After Lord Hood (U.K.) gave an explanation on some points in Article 10 (Bilateral Treaties), on which a request for clarification made by the Rumanian Delegation was supported by the Czechoslovak Delegation, the Commission unanimously adopted Article 10 as drafted by the Council of Foreign Ministers. Mr. Officer (Australia) then moved the Australian amendment to Article 9 (CP(Rou/P)Doc. 7)51 concerning Rumanian membership in certain international organizations. Mr. Harriman suggested that the Commission take account of the debate and action taken in the Finnish Commission on a similar amendment. He wished to add the view of the United States Delegation, which had not been present at that debate, that the subject was adequately covered in the Preamble and that it was undesirable to include a detailed provision such as the Australian Delegation proposed. While agreeing fully with the motives which had prompted the Australian amendment, he felt that it was not entirely appropriate for inclusion in the Treaty and that, in view of the previous debate referred to, his Australian colleague might wish to withdraw it. M. Bogolomov (USSR) opposed the amendment on the ground that it would represent a limitation on Rumania’s sovereignty after that country became a member of the United Nations. Mr. Officer withdrew the Australian amendment, and Article 9 was unanimously accepted as drafted by the Council of Foreign Ministers.
The amendment was as follows:
↩Article 9. Add new paragraph 3.
“3. The Government of Roumania shall apply for membership of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, the International Wheat Council, the International Health Organisation, and such other economic and social organisations as shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations, and shall co-operate with all those bodies in carrying out their decisions and recommendations. The Governments signatory to this Treaty undertake to support any such application made by the Government of Roumania”.