Office of the Historian

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 7, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 36

The Commission’s attention was called to the Italo-Austrian agreement on the South Tyrol (Upper Adige) submitted to the Conference and circulated as CP(Sec)NS 119.52

The Commission continued consideration of Articles 3, 4, and 16. The representative of the Ukraine supported the Yugoslav position and the Byelorussian amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1 D 1). M. Kardelj (Yugoslavia) spoke for one hour in an effort to discredit the South African and Brazilian amendments and their sponsors and in review of the Yugoslav position. In summary, his principal points were:

1.
The Yugoslav Delegation rejects the South African and Brazilian amendments (CP(IT/P)Doc. 2153 and CP Gen Doc. 1 E 2, respectively).
2.
The Yugoslav Delegation cannot accept the CFM solution, i.e. either the frontier between Italy and Yugoslavia or the frontier between the Free Territory of Trieste and Yugoslavia.
3.
In order to reach agreement Yugoslavia is prepared to accept a special international statute for Trieste as a free city but only if its frontiers are reduced to the area of Trieste and immediate environs and if it is closely linked to Yugoslavia and the countries of its hinterland. For these reasons, M. Kardelj concluded, Yugoslavia will not recognize any decision taken nor sign the peace with Italy unless the injustices of the French line are rectified along the lines indicated in Yugoslavia’s earlier declarations and in the present statement. This [Page 397] attitude, he declared, applies equally to the statute of Trieste. The representative of Belgium felt that internationalization of this disputed area afforded opportunities for permanent settlement which had not been fully explored. Since the CFM had started the plan of ethnic frontier and subsequently ended with a policy of internationalization its solution was fundamentally inconsistent. Therefore he declared that he would abstain from voting on the various amendments submitted and on the Article itself. The representative of Australia declared that his Delegation would support the CFM frontier (including the American variation near Gorizia) down to the Free Territory. From there south, however, the Australians disagreed with the French line and would support the South African amendment (CP(IT/P) Doc. 21). Finally, the Australian Delegation would vote against the Yugoslav and Byelorussian amendments. The representative of Brazil said that after careful consideration his Delegation had been unable to comply with the suggestion of the British Delegation to withdraw the amendment to postpone a decision on the Yugoslav-Italian frontier. He reproved the Yugoslav Delegate for unjust criticism of the Brazilian Delegation in presenting an amendment looking toward an ultimate equitable solution of the frontier dispute.
The Chairman put the Brazilian amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1 E 2) to the vote and it was defeated by 18 votes to 1, with 1 abstention.54

  1. For text, see vol. iv, p. 808.↩
  2. For substance, see the first item in Chapter IV of C.P.(Plen) Doc. 24, the report of the Commission, ibid., p. 323.↩
  3. Belgium abstained.↩